Background: With the arrival of a new standardized tool and considering the multiple disadvantages of the actual method used for assesses lighting needs, the goal of the study was to compare the actual lighting assessment method used by the clinicians working in a rehabilitation center with the use of the LuxIQTM. As reading is found to be the main difficulty mentioned by the majority of the clients at the rehabilitation centre and that past studies have shown the impact of lighting on improving reading speed and deceasing print size, the hypothesis stated that the use of the standardized tool would be statistically significantly superior than the use of the standard method on the variables on reading speed, print size, ocular fatigue, application of the recommendations and satisfaction of the length of time read.

Methods: Three clinicians proceeded to home lighting assessments for 28 participants aged from 19 to 100 years (mean =75, SD =27) old diagnosed with age-related macular degeneration or glaucoma. The study evaluated and compared pre and post results between the two methods.

Results: The intervention did not have a statistically significant impact on any of the variables mentioned. The lighting assessment itself, with either the standard method or using the LuxIQ, statistically significantly decreased print size for reading (P<0.001, ω² =0.47).

Conclusions: Lighting has a significant impact on reading print size. Participants value the assessment but encounter various obstacles that prevent them from applying the lighting recommendations. Considering the positive impact of lighting, finding a solution so participants may profit from the benefits of this intervention is crucial.

Background: (I) To describe the development and components of the automobile simulator driving behavior evaluation system developed by CRIR-Institut Nazareth et Louis-Braille; (II) to present the preliminary results of the content evaluation of the driving behavior evaluation grid.

Methods: The evaluation system consists of five components: (I) the VS500M Car Simulator (Virage Simulation); (II) four VS500M driving scenarios, modified to minimize the occurrence of simulator sickness and expose subjects to commonly encountered driving situations on highways and city boulevards; (III) the Tobii Pro Glasses 2 eye tracking device; (IV) a car simulator driving behavior observation grid (DBOG); (V) a software application used during the behaviour evaluation phase, where synchronized video tracking, certain data from the simulator (e.g., speed) and the DBOG grid are presented. Initially, the expected safe driving behaviors were identified, including 235 of a visual nature, supported by literature data and consultation of the project steering committee and an expert in driving assessment. Driving behaviors were assessed in 22 subjects without visual impairment (mean age 55±20 years). Subsequently, the items were revised to determine their relevance based on their importance in terms of road safety or on the frequency with which behaviors were observed among participants. For analysis purpose, the items of the DBOG were grouped according to their content, by type of expected driving behavior (e.g., following a stop, look to the left and right before crossing the intersection) or element to be detected (e.g., pedestrians).

Results: Some visual behaviors are difficult to observe with the eye tracker device because they are more dependent on peripheral than central vision. Others are rarely observed, possibly because they are little or not realized in daily life or the representation of reality on the simulator does not stimulate their adoption. On the other hand, the visual detection behaviors expected in a situation where safety can be compromised are mostly carried out (e.g., detection of oncoming vehicles, side mirror verification when changing lanes).

Conclusions: This first phase of the study has made possible to better target the items to be kept in the car simulator driving behavior observation grid, and those that will have to be removed as they are too difficult to observe or too rarely adopted by the participants. Content validity and inter-rater reliability will be assessed from the simplified grid.