Dataset Information

Comparison of Pedestrian Detection With and Without Yellow-Lens Glasses During Simulated Night Driving With and Without Headlight Glare.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Some marketing materials for yellow-lens night-driving glasses claim that they increase nighttime road visibility and reduce oncoming headlight glare (HLG). However, there is no scientific evidence to support these claims.

Objective

To measure the association between yellow-lens glasses and the detection of pedestrians with and without an oncoming HLG, using a driving simulator equipped with a custom HLG simulator.

Design, setting, and participants

A single-center cohort study was conducted between September 8, 2016, and October 25, 2017, at the Schepens Eye Research Institute. A total of 22 individuals participated in the study, divided into groups to determine response to a pedestrian wearing a navy blue shirt by younger individuals and, to control for participant's age and the interaction of the shirt color with the filter, response to a pedestrian wearing an orange shirt by a group of younger and older participants.

Exposures

Participants drove scripted night-driving scenarios, 3 times with 3 commercially available yellow-lens glasses and once with clear-lens glasses, with the HLG simulator turned on and off. A total of 8 conditions were used for each participant.

Main outcomes and measures

Pedestrian detection response time.

Results

The 22 participants who completed the study included 12 younger (mean [SD] age, 28 [7] years; 6 men) individuals who responded to a pedestrian wearing a dark navy blue shirt, as well as 6 younger (mean [SD] age, 27 [4] years; 4 men) and 4 older (mean [SD], 70 [11] years; all men) participants who responded to a pedestrian in an orange shirt. All participants had normal visual acuity (mean [SD], -0.05 [0.06] logMAR). No significant difference in response time with yellow lens was found in all experiment conditions; younger participants for dark navy blue shirt pedestrians (F1,33 = 0.59; P = .45), orange shirt pedestrians (F1,15 = 0.13; P = .72), and older participants for orange shirt pedestrians (F1,9 = 0.84; P = .38). Among all participants (n = 22), no significant main effect of yellow lenses was found (F1,63 = 0.64; P = .42). In all measuring conditions, the response times with the yellow lenses were not better than with the clear lenses. Significant main effects of HLG were found with dark navy blue shirt pedestrian condition for young participants (F1,33 = 7.34; P < .001) and with orange shirt pedestrian condition for older individuals (F1,9 = 75.32; P < .001), where the difference in response time between with and without HLG was larger for older (1.5 seconds) than younger (0.3 seconds) participants.

Conclusions and relevance

Using a driver simulator equipped with an HLG simulator, yellow-lens night-driving glasses did not appear to improve pedestrian detection at night or reduce the negative effects of HLG on pedestrian detection performance. These findings do not appear to support having eye care professionals advise patients to use yellow-lens night-driving glasses.

SUBMITTER: Hwang AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6681548 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the relationship between intraocular straylight perception and: (i) contrast sensitivity (CS), (ii) halo size, and (iii) hazard recognition distance, in the presence and absence of glare.Subjects and methodsParticipants were 15 (5 female) ophthalmologically healthy adults, aged 54.6-80.6 (median: 67.2) years. Intraocular straylight (log s) was measured using a straylight meter (C-Quant; Oculus GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany). CS with glare was measured clinically using the Optovist I device (Vistec Inc., Olching, Germany) and also within a driving simulator using Landolt Cs. These were presented under both static or dynamic viewing conditions, and either with or without glare. Hazard detection distance was measured for simulated obstacles of varying contrast. For this, the participant was required to maintain a speed of 60 km/h within a custom-built nighttime driving simulator. Glare was simulated by LED arrays, moved by cable robots to mimic an oncoming car's headlights. Halo size ("halometry") was measured by moving Landolt Cs outward originating from the center of a static glare source. The outcome measure from "halometry" was the radius of the halo (angular extent, in degrees visual angle).ResultsThe correlation between intraocular straylight perception, log s, and hazard recognition distance under glare was poor for the low contrast obstacles (leading/subdominant eye: r = 0.27/r = 0.34). Conversely, log CS measured with glare strongly predicted hazard recognition distances under glare. This was true both when log CS was measured using a clinical device (Optovist I: r = 0.93) and within the driving simulator, under static (r = 0.69) and dynamic (r = 0.61) conditions, and also with "halometry" (r = 0.70). Glare reduced log CS and hazard recognition distance for almost all visual function parameters.ConclusionIntraocular straylight was a poor predictor of visual function and driving performance within this experiment. Conversely, CS was a strong predictor of both hazard recognition and halo extent. The presence of glare and motion lead to a degradation of CS in a driving simulator. Future studies are necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of all above-mentioned vision-related parameters for predicting fitness to drive under real-life conditions.

Project description:Purpose(i) To assess how well contrast sensitivity (CS) predicts night-time hazard detection distance (a key component of night driving ability), in normally sighted older drivers, relative to a conventional measure of high contrast visual acuity (VA); (ii) To evaluate whether CS can be accurately quantified within a night driving simulator.Materials and methodsParticipants were 15 (five female) ophthalmologically healthy adults, aged 55-81 years. CS was measured in a driving simulator using Landolt Cs, presented under static or dynamic driving conditions, and with or without glare. In the dynamic driving conditions, the participant was asked to simultaneously maintain a (virtual) speed of 60 km/h on a country road. In the with glare conditions, two calibrated LED arrays, moved by cable robots, simulated the trajectories and luminance characteristics of the (low beam) headlights of an approaching car. For comparison, CS was also measured clinically (with and without glare) using a Optovist I instrument (Vistec Inc., Olching, Germany). Visual acuity (VA) thresholds were also assessed at high and low contrast using the Freiburg Visual Acuity Test (FrACT) under photopic conditions. As a measure of driving performance, median hazard detection distance (MHDD) was computed, in meters, across three kinds of simulated obstacles of varying contrast.ResultsContrast sensitivity and low contrast VA were both significantly associated with driving performance (both P < 0.01), whereas conventional high contrast acuity was not (P = 0.10). There was good correlation (P < 0.01) between CS measured in the driving simulator and a conventional clinical instrument (Optovist I). As expected, CS was shown to decrease in the presence of glare, in dynamic driving conditions, and as a function of age (all P < 0.01).ConclusionContrast sensitivity and low contrast VA predict night-time hazard detection ability in a manner that conventional high contrast VA does not. Either may therefore provide a useful metric for assessing fitness to drive at night, particularly in older individuals. CS measurements can be made within a driving simulator, and the data are in good agreement with conventional clinical methods (Optovist I).