外周视野缺失者的行人碰撞风险:计算分析

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY Optometry and Vision Science Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-20 DOI:10.1097/OPX.0000000000002175
Nish Mohith Kurukuti, Sailaja Manda, Eli Peli
{"title":"外周视野缺失者的行人碰撞风险:计算分析","authors":"Nish Mohith Kurukuti, Sailaja Manda, Eli Peli","doi":"10.1097/OPX.0000000000002175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Significance: </strong>People with peripheral field loss report colliding with other pedestrians on their blind side(s). We show that, in dyadic collision scenarios between persons, one with field loss, such as homonymous hemianopia, and the other normally sighted pedestrian, collisions occur only if the persons with homonymous hemianopia are overtaking the pedestrians, and the collision risk is concentrated at farther bearing angles than previously suggested.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Prior work computed the risk of collision while simulating both pedestrians as points and did not consider the ability of the other pedestrian's normal vision to avoid the collision. We extended the model to better characterize the open space collision risk posed for persons with homonymous hemianopia by normally sighted pedestrians where both have volume.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We computed the risk of collision with approaching pedestrians using a model that simulates approaching pedestrians as volumetric entities without vision, volumetric entities with vision, and as points for comparison with the prior work. Collision risk of approaching pedestrians is characterized for all three conditions through spatial collision risk maps and collision risk densities as a function of bearing and radial distances.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The collision risk for volumetric pedestrians is slightly different from that of point pedestrians. For volumetric pedestrians simulated with normal vision, the risk of collision was reduced substantially, as the other pedestrians could detect and avoid most impending collisions. The remaining collision risk is from pedestrians approaching at higher bearing angles (>50°) and from shorter radial distances (<2 m). Thus, collisions occurred when the pedestrians started in front of the person with homonymous hemianopia that was overtaking the pedestrian.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The probability of collisions between pedestrians and the person with peripheral field loss is low and occurs only when the person with peripheral field loss is walking from behind the pedestrian at faster speed, thereby overtaking them. Such collisions occur with pedestrians at higher bearing angles, which should be monitored by assistive aids to avoid collisions. The same collision risk applies not only in homonymous hemianopia but also in other peripheral field loss such as monocular vision loss or concentric field loss, as common in retinitis pigmentosa and glaucoma.</p>","PeriodicalId":19649,"journal":{"name":"Optometry and Vision Science","volume":" ","pages":"514-522"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk of pedestrian collision for persons with peripheral field loss: A computational analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Nish Mohith Kurukuti, Sailaja Manda, Eli Peli\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/OPX.0000000000002175\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Significance: </strong>People with peripheral field loss report colliding with other pedestrians on their blind side(s). We show that, in dyadic collision scenarios between persons, one with field loss, such as homonymous hemianopia, and the other normally sighted pedestrian, collisions occur only if the persons with homonymous hemianopia are overtaking the pedestrians, and the collision risk is concentrated at farther bearing angles than previously suggested.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Prior work computed the risk of collision while simulating both pedestrians as points and did not consider the ability of the other pedestrian's normal vision to avoid the collision. We extended the model to better characterize the open space collision risk posed for persons with homonymous hemianopia by normally sighted pedestrians where both have volume.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We computed the risk of collision with approaching pedestrians using a model that simulates approaching pedestrians as volumetric entities without vision, volumetric entities with vision, and as points for comparison with the prior work. Collision risk of approaching pedestrians is characterized for all three conditions through spatial collision risk maps and collision risk densities as a function of bearing and radial distances.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The collision risk for volumetric pedestrians is slightly different from that of point pedestrians. For volumetric pedestrians simulated with normal vision, the risk of collision was reduced substantially, as the other pedestrians could detect and avoid most impending collisions. The remaining collision risk is from pedestrians approaching at higher bearing angles (>50°) and from shorter radial distances (<2 m). Thus, collisions occurred when the pedestrians started in front of the person with homonymous hemianopia that was overtaking the pedestrian.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The probability of collisions between pedestrians and the person with peripheral field loss is low and occurs only when the person with peripheral field loss is walking from behind the pedestrian at faster speed, thereby overtaking them. Such collisions occur with pedestrians at higher bearing angles, which should be monitored by assistive aids to avoid collisions. The same collision risk applies not only in homonymous hemianopia but also in other peripheral field loss such as monocular vision loss or concentric field loss, as common in retinitis pigmentosa and glaucoma.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19649,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Optometry and Vision Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"514-522\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"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.0000000000002175\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Optometry and Vision Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000002175","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:之前的研究在计算碰撞风险时,将两个行人都模拟为点,而没有考虑另一个行人正常视力避免碰撞的能力。我们对模型进行了扩展,以更好地描述同性半身不遂者与视力正常的行人在双方都有体积的情况下发生碰撞的风险:我们使用一个模型来计算与驶来的行人发生碰撞的风险,该模型将驶来的行人模拟为没有视觉的体积实体、有视觉的体积实体以及点,以便与之前的工作进行比较。通过空间碰撞风险图和碰撞风险密度与方位和径向距离的函数关系,描述了所有三种情况下接近行人的碰撞风险:体积行人的碰撞风险与点行人的碰撞风险略有不同。对于用正常视力模拟的体积行人,碰撞风险大大降低,因为其他行人可以发现并避免大多数即将发生的碰撞。其余的碰撞风险来自于以较高方位角(>50°)和较短径向距离靠近的行人(结论:行人之间的碰撞概率较低:行人与周边视野缺失者发生碰撞的概率很低,只有当周边视野缺失者从行人后面以更快的速度行走,从而超过行人时才会发生碰撞。这种碰撞发生在方位角较大的行人身上,应通过辅助工具进行监控,以避免碰撞。同样的碰撞风险不仅适用于同侧偏盲,也适用于其他周边视野缺损,如单眼视力丧失或同心视野缺损,常见于视网膜色素变性和青光眼。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Risk of pedestrian collision for persons with peripheral field loss: A computational analysis.

Significance: People with peripheral field loss report colliding with other pedestrians on their blind side(s). We show that, in dyadic collision scenarios between persons, one with field loss, such as homonymous hemianopia, and the other normally sighted pedestrian, collisions occur only if the persons with homonymous hemianopia are overtaking the pedestrians, and the collision risk is concentrated at farther bearing angles than previously suggested.

Purpose: Prior work computed the risk of collision while simulating both pedestrians as points and did not consider the ability of the other pedestrian's normal vision to avoid the collision. We extended the model to better characterize the open space collision risk posed for persons with homonymous hemianopia by normally sighted pedestrians where both have volume.

Methods: We computed the risk of collision with approaching pedestrians using a model that simulates approaching pedestrians as volumetric entities without vision, volumetric entities with vision, and as points for comparison with the prior work. Collision risk of approaching pedestrians is characterized for all three conditions through spatial collision risk maps and collision risk densities as a function of bearing and radial distances.

Results: The collision risk for volumetric pedestrians is slightly different from that of point pedestrians. For volumetric pedestrians simulated with normal vision, the risk of collision was reduced substantially, as the other pedestrians could detect and avoid most impending collisions. The remaining collision risk is from pedestrians approaching at higher bearing angles (>50°) and from shorter radial distances (<2 m). Thus, collisions occurred when the pedestrians started in front of the person with homonymous hemianopia that was overtaking the pedestrian.

Conclusions: The probability of collisions between pedestrians and the person with peripheral field loss is low and occurs only when the person with peripheral field loss is walking from behind the pedestrian at faster speed, thereby overtaking them. Such collisions occur with pedestrians at higher bearing angles, which should be monitored by assistive aids to avoid collisions. The same collision risk applies not only in homonymous hemianopia but also in other peripheral field loss such as monocular vision loss or concentric field loss, as common in retinitis pigmentosa and glaucoma.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Optometry and Vision Science
Optometry and Vision Science 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
210
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Case report: Acute macular neuroretinopathy post-COVID-19 infection. Exploring cognitive overload in adults with visual impairment: The association between concentration and fatigue. A pilot study of the impact of repeated blink refrainment on ocular surface temperature and the interblink period. Extended release of ciprofloxacin from commercial silicone-hydrogel and conventional hydrogel contact lenses containing vitamin E diffusion barriers. Efficacy comparison of repeated low-level red-light therapy and orthokeratology lenses for myopia control.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1