Multifactorial assessment of braking time predictors in a driving simulator among older adults according to gender

Biase, Maria Eugenia Mayr De; Alonso, Angelica Castilho; Silva, Reinaldo Nonato da; Soares, Sara Moutinho; Canonica, Alexandra Carolina; Belini, Alessandra Pricila dos Reis; Soares-Junior, Jose Maria; Baracat, Edmund Chada; Busse, Alexandre Leopold; Jacob-Filho, Wilson; Brech, Guilherme Carlos; Greve, Júlia Maria D’Andrea

doi:10.1016/j.clinsp.2024.100405

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original articles • Clinics 79 • 2024 • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinsp.2024.100405 copy

Multifactorial assessment of braking time predictors in a driving simulator among older adults according to gender

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Context:

Vehicle driving depends on the integration of motor, visual, and cognitive skills to respond appropriately to different situations that occur in traffic.

Objectives:

To analyze a model of performance predictor for braking time in the driving simulator, using a battery of tests divided by gender. Methods: Selected were 100 male drivers with a mean age of 72.6 ± 5.7 years. Sociode-mographic variables, braking time in the driving simulator, and motor, visual, and cognitive skills were evaluated. Results: Comparing genders, men were older than women (p = 0.002) and had longer driving times (p = 0.001). Men had more strength in hand grip (p ≤ 0.001). In the linear regression analysis, the model explained 68 % of the braking time in men and 50.8 % in women. In the stepwise multiple linear regression analysis, the variable that remained in the model was the strength of the right plantar flexors, which explained 13 % of the braking time in women and men, and the cognitive variables explained 38.9 %.

Conclusion:

Sociodemographic, motor, visual, and cognitive variables, explained a substantial portion of the variability in braking time for both older women and men, the specific variables driving this performance differed between the sexes. For older women, factors such as muscle strength emerged as critical determinants of braking ability, highlighting the importance of physical health in maintaining driving skills. On the other hand, cognitive conditions emerged as the primary predictor of braking performance in older men, underscoring the role of mental acuity and decision-making processes in safe driving.

Keywords:
Reaction Time; Older Adults; Driving a Vehicle; Aging

HIGHLIGHTS

Sociodemographic, motor, visual and cognitive variables can predict the braking time.

In women muscle strength for predict the braking time.

In men cognitive conditions predict the braking time.

	Women (n = 50) M (sd)	Men (n = 50) M (sd)	p-value
Demographic data
Age (years)	70.8 (5.5)	74.3 (5.5)	0.002*
Schooling (years)	12.1 (2.9)	12.5 (2.8)	0.444
Driving time (years)	45.9 (5.8)	50.5 (7.3)	0.001*
Motor Domain
DS handgrip test (kg/f)	25.7 (4.7)	38.2 (8.6)	p ≤ 0.001*
NDS handgrip test (kg/f)	23.8 (5.4)	34.2 (8.0)	p ≤ 0.001*
Functional Reach Test (cm)	31.4 (6.4)	33.0 (5.4)	0.195
DP Peak torque corrected body weight (%)	74.3 (27.3)	81.9 (28.5)	0.180
Total work DP 5 repetitions (J)	24.9 (0.0)	24.9 (0.3)	0.429
Time Up and Go (s)	8.7 (1.3)	8.6 (2.2)	0.928
R Shoulder flexion (°)	165.0 (17.9)	160.2 (18.0)	0.187
R Cervical rotation (°)	69.7 (10.4)	67.8 (12.4)	0.419
L Shoulder flexion (°)	165.0 (17.2)	158.7 (18.7)	0.083
L Cervical rotation (°)	72.9 (18.7)	69.4 (12.5)	0.269
Visual Domain
Snelling LS	4.1 (2.9)	3.6 (3.1)	0.419
Snelling DR	4.0 (3.1)	4.2 (3.1)	0.814
Snelling Binocular	1.1 (1.3)	1.1 (1.3)	0.940
Right eye Campimetry (°)	85.9 (7.5)	85.8 (7.7)	0.948
Left eye Campimetry (°)	85.8 (6.7)	86.8 (5.0)	0.402
Cognitive Domain
MoCA	23.8 (3.3)	22.8 (3.6)	0.141
Trail make B – errors	5.1 (6.4)	6.0 (6.5)	0.489
Trail make B- time (s)	136.9 (65.1)	171.6 (129.9)	0.095
Cognitive Time Up and Go (s)	10.8 (2.7)	10.8 (2.7)	0.539
Mini-Mental State Exam	27.9 (1.7)	28.0 (1.8)	0.956
Self-perception of difficulty	5.0 (3.0)	4.7 (3.0)	0.601
Braking time (s)	0.97 (0.1)	0.92 (0.1)	0.131

Model for braking time versus women
Variables	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
Braking time Demographic data	β	EP	β	EP	β	EP	β	EP
Age (years)	0.010	0.006	0.011	0.007	0.002	0.009	0.004	0.010
Schooling (years)	–0.005	0.008	–0.004	0.009	–0.007	0.010	–0.002	0.012
Driving time (years)	–0.006	0.006	–0.004	0.007	0.000	0.008	0.002	0.008
Motor Domain
DS handgrip (kg/f)			0.006	0.010	0.004	0.011	–0.010	0.012
NDS handgrip (kg/f)			–0.015	0.009	–0.011	–0.009	–0.011	0.011
Functional reach (cm)			0.004	0.006	0.005	0.006	0.005	0.007
PT/BW PFD (%)			–0.002	0.001	–0.002	0.001	–0.002	0.002
TT PFD (J)			0.106	0.099	0.053	0.110	–0.069	0.130
TUG (s)			–0.015	0.024	–0.010	0.027	0.003	0.031
R Shoulder flexion (°)			–0.002	0.003	–0.002	0.003	0.001	0.004
R Rotation (°)			–0.001	0.003	–0.001	0.004	–0.004	0.004
L Shoulder flexion (°)			0.004	0.003	0.004	0.003	0.002	0.004
L Rotation (°)			–0.001	0.003	0.000	0.002	–0.001	0.002
Visual Domain
Snelling LE					0.054	0.068	0.060	0.077
Snelling RE					0.067	0.066	0.068	0.077
Snelling binocular					0.004	0.070	0.002	0.081
RE Campimetry (°)					0.002	0.006	0.002	0.007
LE Campimetry (°)					–0.006	0.007	–0.004	0.008
Cognitive Domain
MoCA							–0.020	0.013
Trail make – errors							–0.008	0.008
Trail make ‒ time (s)							0.000	0.001
Cognitive TUG							0.008	0.019
Mini-Mental							–0.007	0.015
Self-perceived difficulties							0.004	0.012
r square	0.073		0.312		0.403		0.508

Model for braking time versus men.
Variables	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
Braking time Demographic data	β	EP	β	EP	β	EP	B	EP
Age (years)	0.011	0.005	0.010	0.006	0.004	0.007	0.005	0.008
Schooling (years)	0.000	0.008	0.010	0.009	0.005	0.009	0.006	0.011
Driving time (years)	–0.006	0.003	–0.008	0.004	–0.009	0.004	–0.007	0.005
Motor Domain
DS handgrip (kg/f)			–0.003	0.006	0.000	0.006	–0.002	0.006
NDS handgrip (kg/f)			0.002	0.007	0.000	0.007	0.000	0.007
Functional reach (cm)			0.004	0.004	0.001	0.004	0.003	0.004
PT/BW PFD (%)			0.000	0.001	0.001	0.001	0.000	0.001
TT PFD (J)			–0.043	0.066	–0.092	0.074	–0.055	0.083
TUG (s)			0.010	0.012	0.017	0.013	–0.011	0.020
R Shoulder flexion (°)			–0.004	0.002	0.001	0.002	–0.001	0.003
R Rotation (°)			–0.001	0.003	0.003	0.004	–0.002	0.004
L Shoulder flexion (°)			–0.004	0.002	–0.003	0.002	–0.001	0.002
L Rotation (°)			–0.003	0.003	–0.005	0.003	–0.006	0.003
Visual Domain
Snelling LE					–0.020	0.042	–0.021	0.044
Snelling RE					–0.029	0.045	–0.023	0.052
Snelling binocular					–0.019	0.053	–0.005	0.063
RE Campimetry (°)					0.002	0.003	0.000	0.004
LE Campimetry (°)					–0.018	0.007	–0.014	0.008
Cognitive Domain
MoCA							–0.009	0.009
Trail make – errors							–0.004	0.004
Trail make ‒ time (s)							0.000	0.000
Cognitive TUG							0.026	0.021
Mini-Mental							0.019	0.015
Self-perceived difficulties							0.002	0.008
r square	0.120		0.389		0.550		0.680

		β	Error Standard	p-value	r square
Women
1	PT/BW PFD (%)	–0.002	0.001	0.01	0.130
Men
1	MoCA	–0.023	0.005	0.000	0.289
2	MoCA	–0.021	0.005	0.000	0.389
	Cognitive TUG	0.015	0.005	0.009

Faculdade de Medicina / USP Rua Dr Ovídio Pires de Campos, 225 - 6 and., 05403-010 São Paulo SP - Brazil, Tel.: (55 11) 2661-6235 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: clinics@hc.fm.usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Corresponding author. E-mail address:guibrech@gamil.com (G.C. Brech).