Navigational Decision‐Making Among Older Drivers: An Analysis of Real‐World Driving Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Driving is an important aspect of independence for older adults. However, cognitive decline may impair driving abilities and safety. A deeper understanding of the impact of cognitive impairment on driving behaviours in older adults can inform public health strategies to support maintaining their ability to drive safely. This study investigates how older adults with and without cognitive impairment make navigational decisions (e.g., route choice) while driving in real‐world settings. Method Participants were enrolled in longitudinal driving studies at Washington University School of Medicine. GPS dataloggers tracked the daily driving patterns of 246 older drivers (aged 65+), including 230 cognitively normal older adults (CTL; Clinical Dementia Rating [CDR] = 0) and 16 older adults with cognitive impairment (DEM; CDR>0). Spatial clustering and hashing algorithms were employed to analyze each participant’s destinations and route choices. Trips with hard‐braking, sudden‐acceleration, and over‐speeding were considered “adverse behavior.” The Mann‐Whitney U‐test was performed to identify significant differences between the two groups. Result The CTL group had an average age of 68.2 ± 5.7 years and was composed of 46% females, while the DEM group had an average age of 69.2 ± 6.8 years and had 36% females. Additionally, the CTL group had a mean of 16.5 ± 2.3 years of education, while the DEM group had a mean of 16.0 ± 2.3 years of education. The results indicated that drivers with cognitive impairment had fewer full‐cycle trips (i.e., trips with the same start point and destination; p = 0.0165), visited fewer new destinations (p = 0.0210), used fewer distinct routes to reach their most common destination (p = 0.0174), and took fewer distinct routes to reach their most common destination when normalized by the average monthly frequency of this trip (p = 0.0062). No significant differences were observed in the other driving measures. Conclusion This study reveals significant differences in driving patterns between cognitively normal older adults and those with cognitive impairment. Older adults with cognitive impairment exhibited more conservative driving behaviors, such as taking fewer full‐cycle trips and having less variety in their daily driving routes. These findings have important implications for designing interventions to improve mobility for older adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".