Comparison of Driving Capacity with Distraction Using the Lane Change Task in Drivers with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Compared with Healthy Controls (P3.291)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare driving capacity while distracted in individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and healthy controls (HC) using the computer simulation of the Lane Change Task (LCT). Background: For road safety, limiting distractions has been recommended for many populations. Distractions which have been found to impair driving include dual tasks requiring cognitive demand, motor demand and visual distractions. Understanding distractions which may influence safe driving in individuals with ALS has not been studied. Methods: Twelve individuals with ALS (Mean (SD): Age, 63.5 (9.0) years; Months since dx, 13 (2.7); ALSFRS total 40 (5); ALSFRS fine motor 9 (2)) and 9 HC (Mean age (SD); 53.4 (10.2) years) were consented to participate. Each individual was assessed to determine physical and cognitive ability; physical ability via 10 meter self-selected gait speed (10mSS); and cognitive ability via Trail Making Test Part B (TMTB) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA). Each individual then performed a driving evaluation using the standardized computer simulation program, LCT for a baseline assessment, followed by motor, cognitive, and visual distraction tasks. The LCT is a reaction time task with a primary dependent variable of mean lane deviation (Mdev), assessing perception, quality of lane change, and lane-keeping quality. Comparison of groups was performed with a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon, with a significance value of p < 0.05. Results: No significant differences were noted between groups on 10mSS, TMTB, or MOCA. No significant differences were noted for LCT (Mdev) at baseline, or with cognitive, or visual distraction tasks. However, for the motor distraction task, the ALS group performed significantly slower than the HC group (p = 0.04). Conclusions: These preliminary results suggest that individuals with ALS have a harder time with accuracy of driving when performing a distraction motor task than HC.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".