Assessing Methods of Enhancing Older Driver Performance

Mehler, Bruce · 2013 · ROSA P / New England University Transportation Center

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates whether commercial cognitive training programs, specifically Posit Science’s DriveSharp, translate neuropsychological improvements into measurable enhancements in on-road driving performance for older adults. While previous research indicated that such training improves laboratory-based neuropsychological metrics and claimed to reduce accidents, there was a lack of comprehensive data linking these findings to functional changes in actual driving behavior or visual attention allocation. The research aimed to assess both neuropsychological gains and their transfer to real-world driving contexts. The researchers conducted a field driving intervention study involving 38 subjects aged 60–75, of whom 32 completed the experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention group, which completed eight hours of DriveSharp training, or a control group assessed after a two-week waiting period. Data collection utilized a 2010 Lincoln MKS instrumented with vehicle telemetry, eye-tracking technology (Seeing Machines FaceLAB 5.0), physiological monitoring systems, and video/audio recording. Assessments included laboratory neuropsychological tests and on-road driving evaluations before and after the intervention period. The results demonstrated that the DriveSharp training significantly improved scores on the Useful Field of View (UFOV) test, a neuropsychological measure of visual attention. However, this improvement did not generalize to other neuropsychological measures, nor did it result in quantifiable improvements in on-road driving performance or visual attention behaviors. The study found no evidence that the training transferred to better driving outcomes or a more optimal allocation of visual attention to the roadway. The authors noted that these null findings might be influenced by limitations such as the small sample size, the specific driving route, the short training duration, or the outcome measures selected. Additionally, the study examined the generalizability of cognitive workload metrics by comparing responses to an n-back working memory task and a visual-spatial clock task. Results indicated that gaze concentration and heart rate changes were highly consistent across both tasks, suggesting that physiological and visual data observed during n-back tasks are generalizable to other cognitive demands. This supports the use of the n-back task in driving research as a sensitive indicator of workload. Ultimately, the paper concludes that while brain training may improve specific laboratory-based attention metrics, it does not necessarily enhance actual driving performance or visual behavior in older drivers, highlighting a disconnect between neuropsychological gains and functional driving improvements.

Key finding

DriveSharp training improved Useful Field of View scores but did not result in measurable improvements in on-road driving performance or visual attention allocation.

Methodology

field_study

Sample size: 32

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

StageOutcomeToolModelPromptAttemptsCompleted
discover success rosap 2 2026-05-23
archive success 1 2026-05-23
extract success cached 2 2026-06-10
clean success 1 2026-06-01
chunk success 1 2026-06-01
embed success 1 2026-06-02
enrich success 1 2026-05-23
promote success 1 2026-05-23
summarize success llm qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant summ-v5 3 2026-06-10
tag success vector_similarity 19 2026-06-11
verify success 2 2026-06-10

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).