Driving Performance Evaluation Correlated to Age and Visual Acuities Based on VR Technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is currently much debate regarding the effectiveness of the driver license system in South Korea, due to the numerous traffic crashes caused by drivers who are suspected of having insufficient physical and mental abilities. Through the present system, it is quite difficult to identify such drivers indirectly through physical tests, such as visual acuity tests, since the correlation of such results with driving performance remains unclear. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between driving performance and visual acuities for improving the South Korean driver license system. In this study, two investigations were conducted: static and dynamic visual acuity examinations and driving performance tests based on a virtual reality (VR) system. The driving performance was evaluated with a driving simulator, based on driving behaviors in different experimental scenarios, including daytime and nighttime driving on a rural highway, and unexpected incident situations. Here, we produce statistically significant evidence that reduced visual acuity impairs driving performance, and driving behaviors differ significantly among groups with different vision capabilities, especially dynamic vision. Visual acuities, typically dynamic visual acuity, greatly influenced driving behavior, as measured by the standard deviation of speeds and vehicle LPs, and this was especially notable in curved road segments in daytime experiment. These experimental results revealed that the driving performance of participants with impaired dynamic visual acuity was deficient and unsafe. This confirmed that dynamic visual acuity levels are significant determinants of driving behavior, and they well explain driver performance levels. These findings suggest that the South Korean driver license system should include a test of dynamic visual acuity to create better and safer 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".