The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Visual Processing Impairment and Risk of Motor Vehicle Crash Among Older Adults
Abstract
CONTEXT: Motor vehicle crash risk in older drivers has been associated with visual acuity loss, but only weakly so, suggesting other factors contribute. The useful field of view is a measure that reflects decline in visual sensory function, slowed visual processing speed, and impaired visual attention skills. OBJECTIVE: To identify whether measures of visual processing ability, including the useful field of view test, are associated with crash involvement by older drivers. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with 3 years of follow-up, 1990-1993. SETTING: Ophthalmology clinic assessment of community-based sample. PATIENTS: A total of 294 drivers aged 55 to 87 years at enrollment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Motor vehicle crash occurrence. RESULTS: Older drivers with a 40% or greater impairment in the useful field of view were 2.2 times (95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.1) more likely to incur a crash during 3 years of follow-up, after adjusting for age, sex, race, chronic medical conditions, mental status, and days driven per week. This association was primarily mediated by difficulty in dividing attention under brief target durations. CONCLUSION: Reduction in the useful field of view increases crash risk in older drivers. Given the relatively high prevalence of visual processing impairment among the elderly, visual dysfunction and eye disease deserve further examination as causes of motor vehicle crashes and injury.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Ball, K., Berch, D. B., Helmers, K. F., Jobe, J. B., Leveck, M. D., Marsiske, M., Morris, J. N., Rebok, G. W., Smith, D. M., Tennstedt, S. L., et al. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.18.2271 · Cited by 2,049
Long-term Effects of Cognitive Training on Everyday Functional Outcomes in Older Adults
Willis, S. L., Tennstedt, S. L., Marsiske, M., Ball, K., Elias, J., Koepke, K. M., Morris, J. N., Rebok, G. W., Unverzagt, F. W., Stoddard, A. M., et al. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.296.23.2805 · Cited by 1,496
Do “brain-training” programs work?
Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2016) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100616661983 · Cited by 1,183
Rebok, G. W., Ball, K., Guey, L. T., Jones, R. N., Kim, H., King, J. W., Marsiske, M., Morris, J. N., Tennstedt, S. L., Unverzagt, F. W., et al. (2014) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/jgs.12607 · Cited by 965
Speed-of-Processing and Driving Simulator Training Result in Improved Driving Performance
Roenker, D. L., Cissell, G. M., Ball, K. K., Wadley, V. G., & Edwards, J. D. (2003) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.45.2.218.27241 · Cited by 469
Metadata
- Authors
- Owsley, C.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1998-04-08
- Volume
- 279
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 1083
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2042853753
- Cited by
- 858
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 61.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Visual Processing Impairment and Risk of Motor Vehicle Crash Among Older Adults. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.279.14.1083
- The paper
- Owsley, C. (1998). Visual Processing Impairment and Risk of Motor Vehicle Crash Among Older Adults. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.279.14.1083
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.