. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Nov 1.

Published in final edited form as: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009 Jul 15;50(11):5137–5147. doi: 10.1167/iovs.09-3799

Table A1.

Differences in Detection Performance for City and Rural Driving

		Detection Rates^*		Response Times (s)^†
		Median (IQR)	Wilcoxon	Mean (SD)	Paired t-test	Wilcoxon
NV, collapsed across side and eccentricity	City	100% (99–100)	Z(12) = 2.682	0.79 (0.17)	t(11) = 4.259	Z(12) = 2.903
	Rural	96% (94–100)	P = 0.007	0.87 (0.18)	P = 0.001	P = 0.004
HH, seeing side, small eccentricity	City	100% (100–100)	Z(12) = 1.00	0.93 (0.27)	t(10) = 4.403	Z(11) = 2.934
	Rural	100% (100–100)	P = 0.317	1.13 (0.28)	P = 0.001	P = 0.003
HH, seeing side, large eccentricity	City	100% (96–100)	Z(12) = 2.431	1.06 (0.28)	t(10) = 2.015	Z(11) = 2.045
	Rural	88% (54–100)	P = 0.015	1.37 (0.50)	P = 0.072	P = 0.041
HH, blind side, small eccentricity	City	75% (58–85)	Z(12) = 1.245	1.41 (0.35)	t(9) = 1.289	Z(10) = 1.27
	Rural	50% (33–83)	P = 0.213	1.60 (0.44)	P = 0.230	P = 0.203
HH, blind side, large eccentricity	City	31% (9–52)	Z(12) = 1.844	1.68 (0.48)	t(3) = 1.082	Z(4) = 1.095
	Rural	17% (8–40)	P = 0.065	2.55 (1.36)	P = 0.359	P = 0.273

n = 12 for the HH and NV groups.

^†

n = 12 for NV group; response times could be calculated only for 11 (seeing-small), 11 (seeing-large), 10 (blind-small), and 4 (blind-large) drivers with HH.