MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988054867 · doi:10.1167/10.7.488

Age and guile vs. youthful exuberance: Sensory and attentional challenges as they affect performance in older and younger drivers

2010· article· en· W1988054867 on OpenAlexaff
Lana M. Trick, Ryan Toxopeus, David J. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)PsychologyTask (project management)Driving simulatorSensory systemCognitionAudiologyCognitive psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSimulationComputer scienceMedicineEngineeringNeuroscienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With age there are reductions in sensory, attentional, and motor function that would predict deficits in performance in older drivers. A variety of studies suggest that the magnitude of these effects varies with the attentional demands of the task: age-deficits in performance are especially notable in tasks where there is high attentional load. These studies typically manipulate attentional load by imposing a secondary task that does not go naturally with driving (e.g. mental arithmetic). In this study, an attempt was made to manipulate the demands of the drive by using challenge factors intrinsic to driving. Three manipulations were investigated: a sensory challenge (driving in fog as compared to driving on a clear day); a traffic density challenge (driving in high as compared to low density traffic); and a navigational challenge (having to use memorized directions, signs and landmarks to navigate while driving as compared to simply “following the road”). The effects of these manipulations were investigated alone and in combination in 19 older adults (M age = 70.8 years) and 21 younger adults (M age = 18.2 years). Participants were tested in a high fidelity driving simulator. Hazard RT, collisions, steering performance and navigational errors were measured. Contrary to prediction, when the driving task was made more challenging, the older drivers performed as well or better than the younger adults, with significantly fewer collisions and marginally lower hazard RT. This high level of performance may have arisen because older drivers adjusted their speeds more appropriately in the face of different driving challenges. Speed adjustment indices were calculated for each condition and participant. For the older adults, these speed adjustment indices correlated with measures of selective and divided attention, which suggests that older adults with deficits in attentional processing adjust their driving speeds to compensate.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207