| Title |
Comparing treatment effects of oral THC on simulated and on-the-road driving performance: testing the validity of driving simulator drug research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychopharmacology, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00213-015-3927-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. L. Veldstra, W. M. Bosker, D. de Waard, J. G. Ramaekers, K. A. Brookhuis |
| Abstract |
The driving simulator provides a safe and controlled environment for testing driving behaviour efficiently. The question is whether it is sensitive to detect drug-induced effects. The primary aim of the current study was to investigate the sensitivity of the driving simulator for detecting drug effects. As a case in point, we investigated the dose-related effects of oral ∆(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), i.e. dronabinol, on simulator and on-the-road driving performance in equally demanding driving tasks. Twenty-four experienced driver participants were treated with dronabinol (Marinol®; 10 and 20 mg) and placebo. Dose-related effects of the drug on the ability to keep a vehicle in lane (weaving) and to follow the speed changes of a lead car (car following) were compared within subjects for on-the-road versus in-simulator driving. Additionally, the outcomes of equivalence testing to alcohol-induced effects were investigated. Treatment effects found on weaving when driving in the simulator were comparable to treatment effects found when driving on the road. The effect after 10 mg dronabinol was however less strong in the simulator than on the road and inter-individual variance seemed higher in the simulator. There was, however, a differential treatment effect of dronabinol on reactions to speed changes of a lead car (car following) when driving on the road versus when driving in the simulator. The driving simulator was proven to be sensitive for demonstrating dronabinol-induced effects particularly at higher doses. Treatment effects of dronabinol on weaving were comparable with driving on the road but inter-individual variability seemed higher in the simulator than on the road which may have potential effects on the clinical inferences made from simulator driving. Car following on the road and in the simulator were, however, not comparable. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 96 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 22 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
| Professor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 14% |
| Unknown | 20 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 12% |
| Psychology | 11 | 11% |
| Engineering | 9 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 21% |
| Unknown | 31 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,953,472
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Psychopharmacology
#1,948
of 5,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,315
of 263,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychopharmacology
#16
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,347 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,961 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.