Visual Attention and Older Drivers: The Contribution of Inhibition of Return to Safe Driving
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing data suggest that visual attention may be impaired in some older drivers, and that such impairment may be related to poorer driving abilities and a higher crash risk. Because effective scanning of the environment is important for safe driving, the authors sought to examine the relationship between a reflexive visual attention mechanism and driving. To examine this issue the authors conducted a preliminary study using the inhibition of return (IOR) paradigm, which has been labeled as a fundamental search mechanism. Forty-one drivers aged 55 and over completed two on-road driving evaluations and IOR testing. After accounting for the contribution of age, IOR statistically predicted overall driving evaluation scores (p = .045), and the number of errors in scanning the environment (p = .031). To the authors' knowledge these findings represent the first documentation of a relationship between IOR and driving. The results are informative regarding the importance of reflexive visual attention mechanisms towards safe driving.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it