Figure 1.
(a) A participant, wearing the mobile eye-tracking head unit; (b) First camera recording the road scene during the drive; (c) Second camera recording the driver during the drive; (d) Calibration points; (e) Scene marker used for calibration.
The subject has given written informed consent, as outlined in the PLOS consent form, to publication of their photograph.
Table 1.
Eight road scenes used for evaluation of driving fitness.
Table 2.
Studied parameters and their evaluation values.
Figure 2.
Distribution of the five different AOIs over the visual field for the assessment of HGD.
Table 3.
List of participants who failed the on-road driving test and main reasons for failure.
Figure 3.
Driving parameters with significant differences between glaucoma control subjects who passed (GCp), glaucoma patients who passed (GPp) and glaucoma patients who failed (GPf) the driving assessment.
Figure 4.
Driving parameters with significant differences between HVFDs control subjects who passed (HCp), patients with right-sided HVFDs who passed (HRp), left-sided HVFDs patients who passed (HLp), and HVFDs patients who failed (HPf) the driving assessment.
Figure 5.
Left: Comparison of the proportion of glances in percent (PGP) towards the VFD between patients who passed (Pf) and patients who failed (Pf); Middle: Comparison of PGP towards VFD between glaucoma patients who passed (GPp) and glaucoma patients who failed (GPf); Right: Comparison of PGP towards VFD between patients with right-sided HVFDs who passed (HRp), patients with left-sided HVFDs who passed (HLp), and patients with HVFDs who failed (HPf).
Figure 8.
Comparison of the horizontal gaze distribution (HGD) towards the central 20° area of the visual field between patients who passed (Pf) and patients who failed (Pf); glaucoma patients who passed (GPp) and glaucoma patients who failed (GPf); and between patients with right-sided HVFDs who passed (HRp), with left-sided HVFDs who passed (HLp), and patients with HVFDs who failed (HPf).
Table 4.
Driving skills and gaze-related parameters for control subjects who passed the driving assessment (Cp), patients who passed (Pp), patients who failed (Pf), glaucoma control subjects who passed (GCp), glaucoma patients who passed (GPp), and glaucoma patients who failed (GPf), HVFDs control subject who passed (HCp), right-sided HVFDs patients who passed (HRp), left-sided HVFDs patients who passed (HLp) and HVFDs patients who failed (HPf).
Figure 6.
The proportion of glances in percent (PGP) of patients with homonymous visual field defects towards the VFD during the on-road assessment.
For each of the eight road scenes (Table 1), the upper panel shows the PGP of each participant. The lower panel shows the corresponding VFD tested by binocular semi-automated 90° kinetic perimetry. The red line and the shallow red area represent the border and the extent of the HVFD, respectively.
Figure 7.
The proportion of glances in percent (PGP) of glaucoma patients towards the VFD during the on-road assessment (Table 2). Else, see Figure 6.
Figure 9.
Venn diagram showing the distribution of subjects who failed the driving task among gaze parameters, head and shoulder movements regarding the capacity of these parameters in predicting failure.
Figure 10.
Venn diagram showing false-positives (red) and false-negatives (green) regarding failure prediction.