Abstract
AbstractThe Useful Field of View task (UFOV) is a strong and reliable predictor of crash risk in older drivers. However, while the functional domain of attention is clearly implicated in UFOV performance, the potential role of one specific attentional process remains unclear: attentional breadth (the spatial extent of the attended region around the point of visual fixation). The goal of the present study was to systematically test the role of two distinct aspects of attentional breadth, maintaining a specific breadth of attention and resizing the attended region, in UFOV performance. To this end, 135 older adults completed the UFOV and modified Navon tasks to measure their efficiency in maintaining, contracting, and expanding the breadth of attention. We then examined individual-difference associations between these aspects of attentional breadth deployment and UFOV performance. We found that performance on UFOV Subtask 2 was associated with efficient contraction of attentional breadth (i.e., resizing the attended region to a smaller area), while Subtask 3 performance was associated with the efficiency of expanding attentional breadth (i.e., resizing the attended region to a larger area). The selectivity of these relationships appears to implicate these specific deployments of attentional breadth in how people complete the task, as it suggests that these relationships are not simply attributable to shared variance in a broader domain of cognitive functioning. The implications of these results for our understanding of UFOV, as well as future research directions that test the relative contributions of different cognitive processes in predicting task performance, are discussed.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference74 articles.
1. Allahyari, T., Saraji, G., Adl, J., Hosseini, M., Iravani, M., Younesian, M., & Kass, S. (2008). Cognitive failures, driving errors and driving accidents. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics : JOSE, 14, 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2008.11076759
2. Andraszewicz, S., Scheibehenne, B., Rieskamp, J., Grasman, R., Verhagen, J., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014). An introduction to Bayesian hypothesis testing for management research. Journal of Management, 41(2), 521–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314560412
3. Anstey, K. J., Horswill, M. S., Wood, J. M., & Hatherly, C. (2012). The role of cognitive and visual abilities as predictors in the Multifactorial Model of Driving Safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 45, 766–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.10.006
4. Aust, F., & Edwards, J. D. (2016). Incremental validity of Useful Field of View subtests for the prediction of instrumental activities of daily living. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 38(5), 497–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2015.1125453
5. Ball, K., & Owsley, C. (1993). The useful field of view test: A new technique for evaluating age-related declines in visual function. Journal of the American Optometric Association, 64(1), 71–79.