Effect of Increasing Road Light Luminance on Night Driving Performance of Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this study was to determine if a minimal increase in road light level (luminance) could lead to improved driving performance among older adults. Older, middle- aged and younger adults were tested in a driving simulator following vision and cognitive screening. Comparisons were made for the performance of simulated night driving under two road light conditions (0.6 and 2.5 cd/m 2 ). At each light level, the effects of self reported night driving avoidance were examined along with the vision/cognitive performance. It was found that increasing road light level from 0.6 cd/m 2 to 2.5 cd/m 2 resulted in improved recognition of signage on straight highway segments. The improvement depends on different driver-related factors such as vision and cognitive abilities, and confidence. On curved road sections, the results showed that driver's performance worsened. It is concluded that while increasing road lighting may be helpful to older adults especially for sign recognition, it may also result in increased driving confidence and thus reduced attention in some driving situations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".