{"title":"The impact of vision loss on attitudes toward autonomous vehicles: A vision-centric analysis.","authors":"Abigail M Kuborn, Shirin E Hassan","doi":"10.1097/OPX.0000000000002145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Significance: </strong>Autonomous vehicles (AVs) have the promise to be an alternative transportation solution for those with vision loss. However, the impact of vision loss on the perceptions and concerns of AVs is unknown. This study therefore examined whether AVs are perceived differently by blind, visually impaired (VI), and normally sighted people.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study compared the perceptions of AVs among the blind, VI, and normally sighted.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants' opinions on four perception measures (general opinion, trust, impact on quality of life, and intention to use AVs) and nine concerns regarding AVs were measured. The survey was administered to 51 normally sighted, 68 VI, and 65 blind participants. Analyses of covariance assessed whether the four perception measures and nine concerns varied by vision status (normal vision, VI, blind) and driving status (driver, nondriver). Univariate correlations and multiple regression analyses identified associations and predictors of AV perceptions and concerns from demographic, mood, cognition, travel behavior, and vision measures, which included visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and visual field.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The blind (p<0.001), VI (p<0.001), and nondrivers (p<0.001) showed a greater intention to use AVs compared with those with normal vision and drivers. Similar findings were found for the other perception measures. As visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and visual field extent declined, positivity toward AVs increased (p<0.001). Visual field extent best predicted general opinion and trust in AVs, whereas driving measures were the best predictors of impact on quality of life and intention to use AVs. Concerns about AVs showed no differences based on vision (p=0.94) or driving (p=0.63) status.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Individuals with vision loss expressed more acceptance of AVs despite their concerns. How positive someone is toward AVs appears to be dependent on their visual field extent and driving status.</p>","PeriodicalId":19649,"journal":{"name":"Optometry and Vision Science","volume":"101 6","pages":"424-434"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Optometry and Vision Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000002145","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Significance: Autonomous vehicles (AVs) have the promise to be an alternative transportation solution for those with vision loss. However, the impact of vision loss on the perceptions and concerns of AVs is unknown. This study therefore examined whether AVs are perceived differently by blind, visually impaired (VI), and normally sighted people.
Purpose: This study compared the perceptions of AVs among the blind, VI, and normally sighted.
Methods: Participants' opinions on four perception measures (general opinion, trust, impact on quality of life, and intention to use AVs) and nine concerns regarding AVs were measured. The survey was administered to 51 normally sighted, 68 VI, and 65 blind participants. Analyses of covariance assessed whether the four perception measures and nine concerns varied by vision status (normal vision, VI, blind) and driving status (driver, nondriver). Univariate correlations and multiple regression analyses identified associations and predictors of AV perceptions and concerns from demographic, mood, cognition, travel behavior, and vision measures, which included visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and visual field.
Results: The blind (p<0.001), VI (p<0.001), and nondrivers (p<0.001) showed a greater intention to use AVs compared with those with normal vision and drivers. Similar findings were found for the other perception measures. As visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and visual field extent declined, positivity toward AVs increased (p<0.001). Visual field extent best predicted general opinion and trust in AVs, whereas driving measures were the best predictors of impact on quality of life and intention to use AVs. Concerns about AVs showed no differences based on vision (p=0.94) or driving (p=0.63) status.
Conclusions: Individuals with vision loss expressed more acceptance of AVs despite their concerns. How positive someone is toward AVs appears to be dependent on their visual field extent and driving status.
期刊介绍：
Optometry and Vision Science is the monthly peer-reviewed scientific publication of the American Academy of Optometry, publishing original research since 1924. Optometry and Vision Science is an internationally recognized source for education and information on current discoveries in optometry, physiological optics, vision science, and related fields. The journal considers original contributions that advance clinical practice, vision science, and public health. Authors should remember that the journal reaches readers worldwide and their submissions should be relevant and of interest to a broad audience. Topical priorities include, but are not limited to: clinical and laboratory research, evidence-based reviews, contact lenses, ocular growth and refractive error development, eye movements, visual function and perception, biology of the eye and ocular disease, epidemiology and public health, biomedical optics and instrumentation, novel and important clinical observations and treatments, and optometric education.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
