Effects of alcohol consumption on driving performance in the presence of interocular differences simulated by filters.

The role of interocular differences simulated by filters (fog filter and Bangerter foil) on visual and driving performance in alcohol users was assessed. We found that the binocular visual function deteriorates significantly in terms of contrast sensitivity (from 6 to 18 cpd). Additionally, driving performance is significantly impaired under these conditions as evidenced by increased mean speed, standard deviation of the lateral position, distance traveled outside the lane, reaction time and number of collisions. Furthermore, we found that interocular differences due to intraocular scattering and straylight are directly related to an overall reduction in visual and driving performance. This provided a comprehensive perspective from which to understand the relationship between binocular visual function, interocular differences, and driving performance. In practice, our findings contribute to the understanding of the importance of limiting interocular differences, which can be common among presbyopes corrected using the monovision technique, as well as in cases of cataract or other ocular pathology affecting only one eye, or even in cases of cataract surgery of the first eye. These interocular differences can have an adverse impact on road safety, especially when combined with moderate alcohol consumption.

Comparison of the influence of alcohol and cannabis on the dynamics of the accommodative response.

PURPOSE: To assess and compare the changes produced by the two most commonly used substances, alcohol and cannabis, on accommodation dynamics. METHODS: A total of 38 young participants (19 females) were enrolled in the study. They were assigned to two groups: a cannabis group (N = 19) and an alcohol group. Participants in the cannabis group underwent two randomized sessions: a baseline session and a session after smoking a cigarette. Participants in the alcohol group underwent three randomized sessions: a baseline session, a session after the intake of 300 ml of red wine (Alcohol 1), and other after the ingestion of 450 ml of wine (Alcohol 2). For the accommodation assessment, the open-field autorefractor WAM-5500 was used. RESULTS: The decrease of the mean velocity of the accommodative response produced by Alcohol 2 condition was significantly greater than that observed for Alcohol 1 and Cannabis (p = 0.046). The direction of the accommodation (near-distance and distance-near) had no effect on the deterioration of the accommodation dynamics following substance use. The target distance had a significant effect on the decrease of the mean velocity following substance use (p = 0.002). The decrease of the amplitude of the accommodative response was associated with a decrease of the peak velocity (p = 0.004) and the increase of the accommodative lag (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A moderate-high dose of alcohol impairs accommodation dynamics to a greater extent that lower dose of alcohol or smoked cannabis. The deterioration of the accommodation mean speed was higher for a shorter target distance.

Comparison of the effects of alcohol and cannabis on visual function and driving performance. Does the visual impairment affect driving?

BACKGROUND: Alcohol and cannabis are the most widely consumed psychoactive substances worldwide. This study compared the effects of alcohol and cannabis on visual function and driving performance, as well as self-perceived effects. Also, the relationship between visual effects under the influence and driving performance was studied. METHODS: Sixty-four young drivers, with a history of alcohol and/or cannabis use were included. Of these, 33 were allocated to the alcohol group and 31 to the cannabis group. All participants were evaluated in a baseline session. The alcohol group underwent two sessions: after drinking 300 ml and 450 ml of red wine (A1 and A2). The cannabis group attended one session after smoking cannabis (C). Visual function was evaluated at the contrast sensitivity, stereoacuity, and intraocular straylight level. Participants drove a driving simulator. A general score (overall visual score, OVS; overall driving performance score, ODPS) was obtained for both visual functioning and driving performance. RESULTS: The evaluation of visual function demonstrated a significant impairment in OVS for all conditions studied (A1, p = 0.005; A2, p < 0.001; C, p < 0.001) with respect to the baseline session. General driving performance (ODPS) demonstrated a significant worsening for the A2 condition (p = 0.003). Finally, a significant relationship between driving performance and visual function was found (rho=0.163, p = 0.039 and χ2 = 4.801, p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis and alcohol use negatively impact visual function. However, driving performance was only significantly affected by the higher alcohol dose. This impairment in visual function was significantly associated with worse driving performance.

Effect of interocular differences on binocular visual performance after inducing forward scattering.

PURPOSE: To assess binocular visual performance by means of binocular summation on visual function after inducing monocular forward scattering, and to study the influence of interocular differences on ocular parameters. METHODS: Seven young healthy subjects were recruited. Four Bangerter foils and five fog filters were used to induce monocular forward scattering. To analyse the impact of the scatter, visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, visual discrimination capacity and distance stereoacuity were measured binocularly with the filter placed over the dominant eye. Additionally, interocular differences were calculated for four ocular parameters: the Objective Scatter Index (OSI), Strehl ratio (SR), modulation transfer function cut-off (MTF cut off) and straylight (log[s]). Binocular summation was determined for these visual functions. RESULTS: A statistically significant deterioration in visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and stereoacuity was seen for all of the filter conditions with respect to the natural state (baseline), with the largest change being recorded for the Bangerter foils. Similarly, the interocular difference for the three retinal image quality parameters (OSI, SR and MTF cut-off) and log(s) increased significantly for the Bangerter foil condition, but not for the fog filters (except log(s)). Binocular summation declined gradually with the Bangerter foils, but not for the fog filters. Statistically significant correlations were found, that is, the greater the interocular differences, the lower the binocular summation of the visual functions and the greater the distance stereoacuity. CONCLUSION: Increased forward scattering in the dominant eye resulted in interocular differences, which reduced the overall binocular visual performance, including the binocular summation of several visual functions and distance stereoacuity. The results suggest that marked interocular differences in ocular parameters should be avoided in cases of ocular pathology, amblyopia and emmetropisation procedures (such as refractive surgery) or a monovision correction for presbyopia.

Dynamics of the accommodative response after smoking cannabis.

PURPOSE: Cannabis is the most widely consumed illicit drug worldwide. It has been suggested that cannabis could generate blurred vision during reading tasks. The goal of this study was to objectively assess the acute effects of smoking cannabis on the dynamics of ocular accommodation. The influence of other factors, including target distance and the direction of accommodation, as well as personal characteristics, were also analysed. METHODS: Nineteen young people who were occasional cannabis users participated in the study (mean age 22.53 [3.12] years). Their usage profiles were evaluated by means of the Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test-revised (CUDIT-r). The dynamics of the accommodative response were evaluated using an open-field auto refractor (Grand Seiko WAM-5500). The participants completed two different experimental sessions, one week apart, and in random order (baseline session and after smoking cannabis). During these sessions, the amplitude of the response (D), mean velocity (D/s), peak velocity (D/s), response time (s), accommodative lag (D) and accommodation variability (D) were measured. RESULTS: The results indicated that cannabis use had a significant main effect on the mean accommodation/disaccommodation velocity (F1,13  = 7.21; p = 0.02; ηp2  = 0.396). Cannabis consumption also interacted significantly with other factors. Response time showed a significant two-way interaction between condition × target distance (F1,13  = 11.71; p = 0.005; ηp2  = 0.474) and condition × accommodation direction (F1,13  = 8.71; p = 0.01; ηp2  = 0.401). For mean velocity, two-way interactions were found between condition × age (F1,13  = 6.03; p = 0.03; ηp2  = 0.354), condition × CUDIT-r score (F1,13  = 6.03; p = 0.03; ηp2  = 0.356) and condition × target distance (F1,13  = 7.20; p = 0.02; ηp2  = 0.396). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that cannabis use can alter the accommodation process, although further studies should be carried out to explore the role of attention deficits. According to these results, certain daily activities that depend on an accurate accommodative function may be affected by cannabis use.

Effects of Smoking Cannabis on Visual Function and Driving Performance. A Driving-Simulator Based Study.

Cannabis is the most widely used illegal drug in the world. Limited information about the effects of cannabis on visual function is available, and more detail about the possible impact of visual effects on car driving is required. This study investigated the effects of smoking cannabis on vision and driving performance, and whether these effects are correlated. Twenty drivers and occasional users were included (mean (SE) age, 23.3 (1.0) years; five women). Vision and simulated driving performance were evaluated in a baseline session and after smoking cannabis. Under the influence of cannabis, certain visual functions such as visual acuity (p < 0.001), contrast sensitivity (p = 0.004) and stereoacuity (far, p < 0.001; near, p = 0.013) worsened. In addition, there was an overall deterioration of driving performance, with the task of keeping the vehicle in the lane proving more difficult (p < 0.05). A correlation analysis showed significant associations between driving performance and visual function. Thus, the strongest correlations were found between the distance driven onto the shoulder and stereoacuity, for near (ρ = 0.504; p = 0.001) and far distances (ρ = 0.408; p = 0.011). This study provides the first evidence to show that the visual effects of cannabis could impact driving performance, compromising driving safety. The results indicate that information and awareness campaigns are essential for reducing the incidence of driving under the influence of cannabis.

Contrast sensitivity and retinal straylight after alcohol consumption: effects on driving performance.

In this study, we aimed to investigate the effects of alcohol intake on visual function and driving performance, as well as on the relationship between these. A total of 40 healthy participants took part in three experimental sessions: one baseline session and two further sessions after consuming two different quantities of alcohol (300 ml and 450 ml of red wine). The breath alcohol content (BrAC) was measured using a breath analyzer. The contrast sensitivity and retinal straylight due to the forward intraocular scattering were measured to characterize visual function, and driving performance was assessed in three different scenarios using a driving simulator. The results showed a deterioration in contrast sensitivity and retinal straylight after drinking alcohol, in addition to an impaired ability to drive, especially for the highest alcohol intake. We also observed that the deteriorated driving performance was a function of the contrast sensitivity and retinal straylight under the effects of alcohol, indicating that these visual variables can partially predict driving performance in these conditions.