Examining Physiological Responses Across Different Driving Maneuvers During an On-road Driving Task: A Pilot Study Comparing Older and Younger Drivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This pilot study aimed to investigate physiological responses during an on-road driving task for older and younger drivers.Methods: Five older drivers (mean age = 74.60 years [2.97]) and 5 younger drivers (mean age = 30.00 years [3.08]) completed a series of cognitive assessments (Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA], Mini Mental Status Examination [MMSE]; Trail Making Test [Trails A and Trails B]) and an on-road driving task along a predetermined, standardized urban route in their own vehicle. Driving performance was observed and scored by a single trained observer using a standardized procedure, where driving behaviors (appropriate and inappropriate) were scored for intersection negotiation, lane changing, and merging. During the on-road driving task, participants’ heart rate (HR) was monitored with an unobtrusive physiological monitor.Results: Younger drivers performed significantly better on all cognitive assessments compared to older drivers (MoCA: t(8) = 3.882, P <.01; MMSE: t(8) = 2.954, P <.05; Trails A: t(8) = −2.499, P <.05; Trails B: t(8) = −3.262, P <.05). Analyses of participants’ performance during the on-road driving task revealed a high level of appropriate overall driving behavior (M = 87%, SD = 7.62, range = 73–95%), including intersection negotiation (M = 89%, SD = 8.37%), lane changing (M = 100%), and merging (M = 53%, SD = 28.28%). The overall proportion of appropriate driving behavior did not significantly differ across age groups (younger drivers: M = 87.6%, SD = 9.04; older drivers: M = 87.0%, SD = 6.96; t(8) = 0.118, P =.91).Conclusions: Although older drivers scored lower than younger drivers on the cognitive assessments, there was no indication of cognitive overload among older drivers based on HR response to the on-road driving task. The results provide preliminary evidence that mild age-related cognitive impairment may not pose a motor vehicle crash hazard for the wider older driver population. To maintain safe mobility of the aging population, further research into the specific crash risk factors in the older driver population is warranted.
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".