
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Aging Neurosci.
Sec. Neurocognitive Aging and Behavior
Volume 17 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2025.1503672
This article is part of the Research Topic Advanced AI techniques in Rehabilitation View all articles
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Objectives: This study proposes to construct a model to replace the on-road test and provide a bundled assessment on the driving function of stroke patients.Method: Clinical data were collected from 38 stroke patients who specified meeting criteria. Bundled assessment including the Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) scale ratings, eye tracking data obtained under the same eight simulated driving tasks as in subject 3, Fugl-Meyer Assessment-lower extremity (FMA-LE) scores, lower limb ankle muscle strength and active range of motion (AROM), and performance on the simulated driving machine. All patients were transported to a driving school and underwent the on-road test. The subject was classified as either Success or Unsuccess group according to whether they had completed the on-road test. A random forest algorithm was then applied to construct a binary classification model based on the data obtained from the two groups.Result: Compared to the Unsuccess group, the Success group had higher scores on the OCS scale for 'crossing out the intact heart' (p=0.015) and lower scores for 'executive function' (p=0.009). The analysis of eye tracking recordings revealed that the Success group exhibited a reduced pupil change rate, a higher proportion of eye movement types that were fixations, a longer mean fixation duration, and a significantly faster mean average velocity of saccade in the U-turn (p=0.032), Left-turn (p=0.015), and Free-driving tasks (p=0.027). Compared to the Unsuccess group, the Success group had higher FMA-LE scores (p=0.018), higher manual muscle strength for ankle dorsiflexion (p=0.024) and plantarflexion (p=0.040), and greater AROM in dorsiflexion (p=0.020) and plantarflexion (p=0.034). The success group demonstrated fewer collisions (p<0.001), lane violations (p<0.001), and incorrect maneuvers (p<0.001) when completing the simulated driving task. The random forest model for bundled assessment demonstrated an accuracy of >83% based on 56 statistically distinct input data sets.The bundled assessment, which includes cognitive, eye tracking, motor, and simulated driver performance, offers a potential indicator of whether stroke patients may be able to pass the onroad test. Furthermore, the established random forest classification model has demonstrated efficacy in predicting on-road test outcomes, which is worthy of further clinical application.
Keywords: driving, Stroke, Eye-tracking, motor-cognitive functions, random forest
Received: 05 Oct 2024; Accepted: 17 Mar 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Huang, Liu, Yi, Jiao, Zhang, Zhu, Yu, Liu, Gao and Duan. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Xiaoqin Duan, Second Affiliated Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, Jilin Province, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.