Neuropsychological predictors of driving hazard detection in autism spectrum disorder and ADHD

ABSTRACT

Driving is a neuropsychologically complex task; this can present challenges for individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) such asautism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention–deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Deficits in theory of mind (ToM) and executive function (EF) are common features of ASD and ADHD, respectively, and may influence driving processes such as hazard perception. No studies have directly examined the neuropsychological contributions to hazard detection among drivers with ASD compared to ADHD.In the current study, 48 participants ages 16-30 years (13 ASD, 17 ADHD, 18 typically developing (TD)) completed a driving simulator task in which they encountered hazards in the driving environment. Hazards varied in whether they were social (contained a human component) or nonsocial (were physical objects) to examine the contribution of ToM and social processing to hazard response. Additionally, participants completed a neuropsychological battery targeting ToM and EF/attention skills (cognitive tasks and self-report measures).Within the ASD group, participants responded relatively slower to social compared to nonsocial hazards; no effect of hazard type was observed in the ADHD or TD groups. Additionally, measures of ToM and EF were correlated with driving performanceamong ASD participants; within the ADHD group, only self-reported behavior regulation was associated with driving performance. Broadly, this suggests that cognitive factors such as ToM and EF impact driving hazard performance in ASD and ADHD. The results of the study have implications for developing driving intervention programs for individuals with NDDs.

KEYWORDS:

• Autism spectrum disorder
• attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
• driving
• theory of mind
• executive function

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to the Translational Research for Injury Prevention (TRIP) Laboratory for providing use of the driving simulator facility.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2021.1908531.

Additional information

Funding

The research described in this paper was supported by the Civitan International Pilot Research Grant, the University of Alabama College of Arts & Sciences Faculty Fund, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham Department of Psychology.