Could driving help us to “see better”? A comparative assessment of saccadic efficiency, visual speed, and attention

Abstract

BackgroundThis study aimed at comparing drivers’ and non-drivers’ results in the Adult Developmental Eye Movement with Distractors test (ADEMd) and the Useful Field of View test (UFOV).MethodsOne hundred and twenty Spaniards (mean age 50.90 ± 17.32 years) without eye disease voluntarily participated in this cross-sectional descriptive study. Participants in a single experimental session completed a questionnaire on sociodemographic, health, eyesight, and driving information. They also performed the ADEMd and UFOV tests randomly following standardized protocols. The ADEMd is a visual-verbal test that measures saccadic efficiency and visual attention. Brown-Forsythe (B–F) tests with Games-Howell post-hoc adjustments were conducted to assess differences between groups. Groups were formed according to sex, age (young adults, adults, and older adults), and driver/non-driver for further analysis. Additionally, associations between dependent variables were assessed through Spearman’s correlations.ResultsDrivers obtained significantly better results in the ADEMd compared with non-drivers. Non-significant differences between drivers and non-drivers were encountered in the UFOV. Additionally, significant differences were observed between sexes and age groups. It is worth highlighting that non-driver’s age significantly correlated with worse ADEMd performance (rho = .637 to .716). This correlation was non-significant in drivers. Similarly, reading hours significantly correlated with better ADEMd performance in non-drivers (rho = − .291 to − .363), but not in drivers. The only significant correlations between ADEMd and UFOV tests were found in drivers (rho = .307 to .410).ConclusionConsidering all the discussed results, it could be hypothesized that the driving task promotes abilities, such as oculomotor and cognitive function, which are relevant for the performance in the ADEMd. However, this hypothesis is based on correlational outcomes and further studies should causally assess this possible relation.