Differences between racing and non-racing drivers: A simulator study using eye-tracking.

Motorsport has developed into a professional international competition. However, limited research is available on the perceptual and cognitive skills of racing drivers. By means of a racing simulator, we compared the driving performance of seven racing drivers with ten non-racing drivers. Participants were tasked to drive the fastest possible lap time. Additionally, both groups completed a choice reaction time task and a tracking task. Results from the simulator showed faster lap times, higher steering activity, and a more optimal racing line for the racing drivers than for the non-racing drivers. The non-racing drivers' gaze behavior corresponded to the tangent point model, whereas racing drivers showed a more variable gaze behavior combined with larger head rotations while cornering. Results from the choice reaction time task and tracking task showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Our results are consistent with the current consensus in sports sciences in that task-specific differences exist between experts and novices while there are no major differences in general cognitive and motor abilities.

Effects of visual fidelity on curve negotiation, gaze behaviour and simulator discomfort.

Technological developments have led to increased visual fidelity of driving simulators. However, simplified visuals have potential advantages, such as improved experimental control, reduced simulator discomfort and increased generalisability of results. In this driving simulator study, we evaluated the effects of visual fidelity on driving performance, gaze behaviour and subjective discomfort ratings. Twenty-four participants drove a track with 90° corners in (1) a high fidelity, textured environment, (2) a medium fidelity, non-textured environment without scenery objects and (3) a low-fidelity monochrome environment that only showed lane markers. The high fidelity level resulted in higher steering activity on straight road segments, higher driving speeds and higher gaze variance than the lower fidelity levels. No differences were found between the two lower fidelity levels. In conclusion, textures and objects were found to affect steering activity and driving performance; however, gaze behaviour during curve negotiation and self-reported simulator discomfort were unaffected. PRACTITIONER SUMMARY: In a driving simulator study, three levels of visual fidelity were evaluated. The results indicate that the highest fidelity level, characterised by a textured environment, resulted in higher steering activity, higher driving speeds and higher variance of horizontal gaze than the two lower fidelity levels without textures.

Obstacle avoidance, visual detection performance, and eye-scanning behavior of glaucoma patients in a driving simulator: a preliminary study.

The objective of this study was to evaluate differences in driving performance, visual detection performance, and eye-scanning behavior between glaucoma patients and control participants without glaucoma. Glaucoma patients (n = 23) and control participants (n = 12) completed four 5-min driving sessions in a simulator. The participants were instructed to maintain the car in the right lane of a two-lane highway while their speed was automatically maintained at 100 km/h. Additional tasks per session were: Session 1: none, Session 2: verbalization of projected letters, Session 3: avoidance of static obstacles, and Session 4: combined letter verbalization and avoidance of static obstacles. Eye-scanning behavior was recorded with an eye-tracker. Results showed no statistically significant differences between patients and control participants for lane keeping, obstacle avoidance, and eye-scanning behavior. Steering activity, number of missed letters, and letter reaction time were significantly higher for glaucoma patients than for control participants. In conclusion, glaucoma patients were able to avoid objects and maintain a nominal lane keeping performance, but applied more steering input than control participants, and were more likely than control participants to miss peripherally projected stimuli. The eye-tracking results suggest that glaucoma patients did not use extra visual search to compensate for their visual field loss. Limitations of the study, such as small sample size, are discussed.