Fig 1.
Theoretical model for the requirements for compensatory scanning.
Fig 2.
Driving simulator.
Fig 3.
Scenarios.
Fig 4.
Images used for the measurement of the mental model of the driving scene and the perceived attention demand.
The five AOIs were marked as overlay in different colors: left far periphery (E, pink), near left periphery (D, yellow), center (A, blue), near right periphery (B, yellow), and far right periphery (C, pink). The same AOIs were marked in each situation: baseline (depicted here), zebra crossing, bus station, and playground. The small, inserted images on the left and right provided the views from the side-mirrors.
Fig 5.
Setup for the measurement of the mental model of vision.
Fig 6.
Difference between the actual and the perceived visual field size.
Data is displayed per group (NV; HVFL) and side (left; right / blind; seeing) [in degrees]. Negative values indicate an overestimation of the visual field.
Fig 7.
Difference between the actual and the perceived gaze movement required to perceive an object at an eccentricity of 30°.
Negative values indicate an underestimation of the required gaze movement.
Fig 8.
Depiction of the existent patterns in the mental model of the driving scene.
Table 1.
Distribution of patterns for the mental model of the driving scene per participant and scenario.
Fig 9.
Display of patterns ranking the perceived attention demand.
Each pattern is defined by the ranking of the five AOIs (far left (FL), near left (NL), center (C), near right (NR) and far right (FR)). The occurrence among both groups is indicated. For side-specific patterns, the blind side (in this figure right side as an example) is marked grey. Note that distinctions between the blind and seeing sides do not apply to NV participants.
Table 2.
Mean and standard deviation (in brackets) of the match of rank orders between the mental model of the driving scene and the perceived attention demand.
Table 3.
Mean and standard deviation (in brackets) of the match of rank orders between the perceived attention demand and the actual attention ratio.
Fig 10.
Ratio of collision free scenarios per HVFL participant (over all scenarios) and the relation to the underlying patterns in the test of the perceived attention demand.
Each “x” represents one occurrence of the respective pattern in the baseline, zebra crossing, bus station, or playground scenario. Only scenarios with a crossing hazard are considered.