4.6 Article

Retraining Visual Processing Skills To Improve Driving Ability After Stroke

Journal

ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION
Volume 90, Issue 12, Pages 2096-2102

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.08.143

Keywords

Automobile driving; Brain injuries; Cerebrovascular accident; Randomized clinical trial; Rehabilitation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Crotty M, George S. Retraining visual processing skills to improve driving ability after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009;90:2096-102. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of retraining using the Dynavision on driving performance of people with stroke. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Outpatient rehabilitation clinic in Australia. Participants: People with stroke (N=26) referred for driving assessment. Interventions: Eligible participants were randomized to either receive retraining with the Dynavision apparatus for 18 sessions or to receive no intervention and go onto a waitlist. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was an assessment of on-road ability. Secondary outcomes included measures of response speed, visual scanning, and self-efficacy. All assessments were conducted by assessors blinded to group assignment. Results: No significant difference (P=.223) was found between the intervention and control groups in results of on-road assessment in terms of pass or fail; the primary outcome measure; or the results on the secondary outcome measures of response speed, visual scanning, and self-efficacy. Conclusions: In this small trial, training underlying skills (such as executing a continuous wide scan, combining motor and visual processing into a motor response) using the Dynavision apparatus did not improve the outcomes of an on-road assessment for people after strokes. Larger trials are needed to evaluate devices that claim to retrain underlying skills related to driving.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available