You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effect of Cognitive Demand on Functional Visual Field Performance in Senior Drivers with Glaucoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00286 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Viswa Gangeddula, Maud Ranchet, Abiodun E. Akinwuntan, Kathryn Bollinger, Hannes Devos |
| Abstract |
Purpose: To investigate the effect of cognitive demand on functional visual field performance in drivers with glaucoma. Method: This study included 20 drivers with open-angle glaucoma and 13 age- and sex-matched controls. Visual field performance was evaluated under different degrees of cognitive demand: a static visual field condition (C1), dynamic visual field condition (C2), and dynamic visual field condition with active driving (C3) using an interactive, desktop driving simulator. The number of correct responses (accuracy) and response times on the visual field task were compared between groups and between conditions using Kruskal-Wallis tests. General linear models were employed to compare cognitive workload, recorded in real-time through pupillometry, between groups and conditions. Results: Adding cognitive demand (C2 and C3) to the static visual field test (C1) adversely affected accuracy and response times, in both groups (p < 0.05). However, drivers with glaucoma performed worse than did control drivers when the static condition changed to a dynamic condition [C2 vs. C1 accuracy; glaucoma: median difference (Q1-Q3) 3 (2-6.50) vs. 2 (0.50-2.50); p = 0.05] and to a dynamic condition with active driving [C3 vs. C1 accuracy; glaucoma: 2 (2-6) vs. 1 (0.50-2); p = 0.02]. Overall, drivers with glaucoma exhibited greater cognitive workload than controls (p = 0.02). Conclusion: Cognitive demand disproportionately affects functional visual field performance in drivers with glaucoma. Our results may inform the development of a performance-based visual field test for drivers with glaucoma. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 66 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 18% |
| Researcher | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 18% |
| Unknown | 17 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 15% |
| Psychology | 9 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 12% |
| Engineering | 5 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 23 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 October 2017.
All research outputs
#13,493,320
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#2,946
of 4,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,071
of 315,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#54
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,838 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 315,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.