4.4 Article

Useful Field of View Test

Journal

GERONTOLOGY
Volume 60, Issue 4, Pages 315-318

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000356753

Keywords

Useful field of view; Visual processing speeds; Functional fields; Divided attention; Selective attention

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [P30 AG022838] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The useful field of view test was developed to reflect the visual difficulties that older adults experience with everyday tasks. Importantly, the useful field of view test (UFOV) is one of the most extensively researched and promising predictor tests for a range of driving outcomes measures, including driving ability and crash risk as well as other everyday tasks. Currently available commercial versions of the test can be administered using personal computers; these measure the speed of visual processing for rapid detection and localization of targets under conditions of divided visual attention and in the presence and absence of visual clutter. The test is believed to assess higher-order cognitive abilities, but performance also relies on visual sensory function because in order for targets to be attended to, they must be visible. The format of the UFOV has been modified over the years; the original version estimated the spatial extent of useful field of view, while the latest version measures visual processing speed. While deficits in the useful field of view are associated with functional impairments in everyday activities in older adults, there is also emerging evidence from several research groups that improvements in visual processing speed can be achieved through training. These improvements have been shown to reduce crash risk, and can have a positive impact on health and functional well-being, with the potential to increase the mobility and hence the independence of older adults. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available