Optometry - Journal of the American Optometric Association
Volume 79, Issue 1 , Pages 36-42 , January 2008

The effects of cell phone use on peripheral vision

  • W.C. Maples, O.D., M.S.

      Affiliations

    • Southern College of Optometry, Memphis, Tennessee
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: W.C. Maples, O.D., M.S., Southern College of Optometry, 1245 Madison Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee 38104.
    • ,
  • Wes DeRosier, O.D., M.A.

      Affiliations

    • Northeastern State University–Oklahoma College of Optometry, Tahlequah, Oklahoma
    • ,
  • Richard Hoenes, M.A.

      Affiliations

    • Northeastern State University–Oklahoma College of Optometry, Tahlequah, Oklahoma
    • ,
  • Rodney Bendure, O.D.

      Affiliations

    • Northeastern State University–Oklahoma College of Optometry, Tahlequah, Oklahoma
    • ,
  • Sherl Moore, O.D.

      Affiliations

    • Private Practice, Fort Gibson, Oklahoma.

References 

  1. Beede KE, Kass SJ. Engrossed in conversation: the impact of cell phones on simulated driving performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2006;38:415–421
  2. Meo SA, Al-Dress AM. Mobile phone related-hazards and subjective hearing and vision symptoms in the Saudi population. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2005;18:53–57
  3. Strayer DL, Drews FA. Profiles in driver distraction: effects of cell phone conversations on younger and older drivers. Hum Factors. 2004;46:640–649
  4. Horrey WJ, Wickens CD. Examining the impact of cell phone conversations on driving using meta-analytic techniques. Hum Factors. 2006;48:196–205
  5. Rosenbloom T. Driving performance while using cell phones: an observational study. J Safety Research. 2006;37:205–212
  6. Johnson MB, Voas RB, Lacey JH, et al. Living dangerously: driver distraction at high speed. Traffic Injury Prevention. 2004;5:1–7
  7. Matthews R, Legg S, Charlton S. The effect of cell phone type on drivers’ subjective workload during concurrent driving and conversing. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2003;35:451–457
  8. Langer P, Holzner B, Magnet W, et al. Hands-free mobile phone conversation impairs the peripheral visual system to an extent comparable to an alcohol level of 4-5 g 100 ml. Hum Psychopharmacol Clin Exp. 2005;20:65–66
  9. Laberge-Nadeau C, Maag U, Bellavance F, et al. Wireless telephones and the risk of road crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2003;35:649–660
  10. Cooper P, Zheng Y, Richard C, et al. The impact of hands-free message reception/response on driving task performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2003;35:23–35
  11. Crundall D, Underwood G, Chapman P. Driving experience and the functional field of view. Perception. 1999;28:1075–1087
  12. McCartt A, Braver E, Greary L. Drivers’ use of handheld cell phones before and after New York state’s cell phone law. Prev Med. 2003;36:629–635
  13. Grant A. Mobile cellular telephony vs. defensive safe driving. Optometry. 2000;71:415–417
  14. Stutts J, Reinfurt D, Rodgman E. The role of driver distraction in crashes: an analysis of 1995-1999 crashworthiness data system data. Annual Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med. 2001;45:287–301
  15. Lyde L, Osborne V, Coleman P, et al. Age and distraction by telephone conversation in task performance: implications for use of cellular telephones while driving. Percept Mot Skills. 2002;94:391–394
  16. Strayer D, Drews F, Johnston W. Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2003;9:23–32
  17. Ball K. Real-world evaluation of visual function. Ophthalm Clin North Am. 2003;16:289–298
  18. Clay OJ, Wadley VG, Edwards JD, et al. Cumulative meta-analysis of the relationship between useful field of view and driving performance in older adults: current and future implications. Optom Vis Sci. 2005;82:724–731
  19. Johnson CA. Vision requirement for driver’s license examiners. Optom Vis Sci. 2005;82:779–789
  20. Casson E, Recette L. Vision standards for driving in Canada and the United States (A review for the Canadian Ophthalmological Society). Can J Ophthalmol. 2000;35:192–203
  21. Coeckelbergh T, Brouwer F, Cornelissen F, et al. The effect of visual field defects on driving performance. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:1509–1516
  22. Kiel A, Alwitry A. Visual acuity and legal visual requirement to drive a passenger vehicle. Eye. 2003;17:579–582
  23. Maples WC. Test-retest reliability of the College of Optometrists in Vision Development Quality of Life Outcomes Assessment. Optometry. 2000;71:579–585
  24. Maples WC. Test-retest reliability of the College of Optometrists in Vision Development Quality of Life Outcomes Assessment Short Form. J Optom Vis Dev. 2002;33:126–134
  25. Maples WC, Bither M. Efficacy of vision therapy as assessed by the COVD Quality of Life Checklist. Optometry. 2002;73:492–498
  26. Daugherty KM, Frantz KA, Allison CL, et al. Evaluating changes in life after vision therapy using the COVD Quality of Life Outcomes Assessment. J Optom Vis Dev. 2007;38:75–81
  27. Farrar R, Call M, Maples WC. A comparison of the visual symptoms between ADD/ADHD and normal children. Optometry. 2001;72:441–451
  28. Vaughn W, Maples WC, Hoenes R. The association between vision quality of life and academics as measured by the College of Optometrists in Vision Development Quality of Life questionnaire. Optometry. 2006;77:116–123
  29. Anderson DR. Plotting isopeters kinetically. In: Testing the field of vision. St. Louis: Mosby; 1982;p. 34–42

PII: S1529-1839(07)00635-5

doi: 10.1016/j.optm.2007.04.102

Optometry - Journal of the American Optometric Association
Volume 79, Issue 1 , Pages 36-42 , January 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution