Skip to main content

Table 7 Synthesis of intervention studies involving simulator-based training

From: Are interventions effective at improving driving in older drivers?: A systematic review

Authors

Number (n), Age (yr) Country (c)

R.D.

Objective

Study description

Dependent Variable

Relevant results

QS

Marchal-Crespo et al., [49]

n = 32.

yr = between 65 and 92 years old.

c = USA

RCT

One goal of the present study was, therefore, to determine if the guidance-related learning enhancement persists at a long-term (1 week later) retention test.

Evaluated 4 groups two mainly group divided by age and then every group was randomly assigned in guidance and no guidance:

-Guidance group-young (n:15): Drove 15 times with haptic guidance and 5 without.

-Guidance group-old (n: 17): Drove 15 times with haptic guidance and 5 without.

-No guidance group-young (n: 15): Drove the circuit 20 times without robotic guidance.

-No guidance group-old (n:14): Drove the circuit 20 times without robotic guidance

The intervention consisted in 3 experimental session on different days. In the first and third session were carried out tests. The second session participants performed the training.

(S): The tracking error: defined as the mean of the absolute value between the center of the simulated wheelchair and the black line, was measured

(S): Trajectories followed.

(S):Long-term reduction in steering performance.

(S): Performance (error reduction).

S (−): Training with guidance significantly improved long-term retention of the task only for younger drivers. Furthermore, improved long-term retention more for initially less skilled drivers and finally improved learning of the steering task in curves, whereas it did not affect learning during straight lines.

S (−): Older drivers did not find significant difference in training with guidance or without.

S (−): There was an effect of age on driving performance and retention. The older drivers have a worse performance and also learned more slowly and forgot the learned task.

0,75

Rogé et al., [50]

n = 31

yr = between 63 and 78 years old.

c = France

RCT

Our aim in this study was to test the two following hypotheses: that specific training given during simulated driving would improve elderly drivers’ useful visual field; and that the training given would allow them to detect more easily vulnerable road users than untrained elderly drivers during simulated driving.

The 31 participants were divide in 2 groups:

-Experimental (n: 15): training in simulator to increase the useful visual field.

-Control (n: 16): driving in the simulator maintaining a constant distance between the vehicle in front.

The interventions were based in two visits to the lab separated with 12 days on average. The entire two sessions lasted 5 h and 4 h and 15 min to the experimental and control group respectively.

(S): Useful visual field size: Was estimated during driving. Participants had to detect a change in color (central signal) of a disc which appeared briefly and intermittently on the rear window of the vehicle they were following. 22 central signals appeared during the test. They also had to detect 48 peripheral signals which appeared briefly at 3 eccentricities on the road over 8 different meridians.(S): Visibility distance of vulnerable road users

S (+): There was a significant effect in the useful visual field size, were untrained participants detected a lower number of signals in the central task compared to the trained group. Also, in the peripheral task the experimental group detected a greater number of signals than untrained participants (49,48% vs 27.93%) when this test was administered at the end of the experiment.

S (+): The training would allow elderly drivers to improve their ability to detect vulnerable road users while driving. Visibility distance for vulnerable road users was greater in the experimental group than in the control group and the visibility distance was greater in session 2 than in session 1. Also, the type of vulnerable road user also had a significant effect on visibility distance which was greater for pedestrians than for two-wheeled motorized vehicles, were the trained group was better to detect pedestrians in the road environment

0,68