This scoping review evaluates the current use of driving simulators in neurorehabilitation, focusing on diagnostic assessment and therapeutic training in neurological populations.
Data Sources
We searched nine major databases for studies published through September 2025, using broad terms related to simulated driving and neurorehabilitation.
Review Methods
Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we used ASReview software with active learning to identify relevant studies. Articles were grouped into diagnostic, therapeutic, review, and special interest categories, with data charted manually by two reviewers.
Results
Of 224 included articles, 124 addressed diagnostic use and 25 examined therapeutic interventions. Simulated driving was often evaluated for its predictive value in determining fitness-to-drive. Combined with neuropsychological tests, simulator outcomes reliably identified key cognitive predictors such as attention and executive function. Twenty-eight studies included on-road driving comparisons, supporting simulator validity. Simulator-based interventions showed benefits for patients with stroke, traumatic brain injury, or Parkinson's disease, particularly for improving tactical driving skills and awareness. Benefits were more pronounced in individuals with mild to moderate impairments. Simulators were generally well-accepted across patient populations.
Conclusion
Despite the heterogeneity of the literature, there is evidence to support the use of driving simulators as a promising tool for evaluating and improving fitness to drive in neurorehabilitation.
NiemannHHartjeW. Driving behaviour and accident rate after brain damage: one year follow-up. Z Neuropsychologie2015; 26: 225–237.
2.
DevosHAkinwuntanAENieuwboerA, et al.Screening for fitness to drive after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology2011; 76: 747–756.
3.
GroegerJAMurphyG. Driving and cognitive function in people with stroke and healthy age-matched controls. Neuropsychol Rehabil2022; 32: 1075–1098.
4.
ChanmasGTaveekitworachaiPPaliyawanP, et al.Driving scenarios and environmental settings in simulator-based driving assessment systems for stroke: a systematic review. Top Stroke Rehabil2023; 30: 872–880.
5.
GroegerJAMurphyG. Driving and cognitive function in people with stroke and healthy age-matched controls. Neuropsychol Rehabil2022; 32: 1075–1098.
6.
CaffòAOTinellaLLopezA, et al.The drives for driving simulation: a scientometric analysis and a selective review of reviews on simulated driving research. Front Psychol2020; 11: 917.
7.
DevosHAkinwuntanANieuwboerA, et al.Comparison of the effect of two driving retraining programs on on-road performance after stroke. Neurorehabilit Neural Repair2009; 23: 699–705.
8.
DevosHMorganJCOnyeamaechiA, et al.Use of a driving simulator to improve on-road driving performance and cognition in persons with Parkinson’s disease: a pilot study. Aust Occup Ther J2016; 63: 408–414.
9.
MazerBGélinasIDuquetteJ, et al.A randomized clinical trial to determine effectiveness of driving simulator retraining on the driving performance of clients with neurological impairment. Br J Occup Ther2015; 78: 369–376.
10.
Dimech-BetancourtBPonsfordJCharltonJ, et al.Investigating feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a simulator-based driving intervention for people with acquired brain injury: a randomised controlled pilot study. Clin Rehabil2021; 35: 1277–1289.
11.
TiuJHarmonACStoweJD, et al.Feasibility and validity of a low-cost racing simulator in driving assessment after stroke. Geriatrics2020; 5: 35.
12.
WinterJCFGrootSMulderM, et al.Relationships between driving simulator performance and driving test results. Ergonomics2009; 52: 137–153.
13.
KraftMAmickMMBarthJT, et al.A review of driving simulator parameters relevant to the operation enduring freedom/operation Iraqi freedom veteran population. Am J Phys Med Rehabil2010; 89: 336–344.
14.
PavlouDPapadimitriouEAntoniouC, et al.Comparative assessment of the behaviour of drivers with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease in different road and traffic conditions. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2017; 47: 122–131.
15.
WynneRABeanlandVSalmonPM. Systematic review of driving simulator validation studies. Saf Sci2019; 117: 138–151.
16.
TriccoACLillieEZarinW, et al.PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med2018; 169: 467–473.
17.
PetersMDJGodfreyCMKhalilH, et al.Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Évid Based Healthc2015; 13: 141–146.
18.
ArkseyHO’MalleyL. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol2005; 8: 19–32.
19.
SchootRBruinJSchramR, et al.An open source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews. Nat Mach Intell2021; 3: 125–133.
20.
MondiaMWLAvilaEKWefelJS, et al.Brain tumors and fitness to drive: a review and multi-disciplinary approach. Neuro Oncol Pr2025; 12: 183–196.
21.
ShimonagaKHamaSTsujiT, et al.The right hemisphere is important for driving-related cognitive function after stroke. Neurosurg Rev2021; 44: 977–985.
22.
SchmidtIWBrouwerWHVanierM, et al.Flexible adaptation to changing task demands in severe closed head injury patients: a driving simulator study. Appl Neuropsychol1996; 3: 155–165.
23.
LengenfelderJSchultheisMTAl-ShihabiT, et al.Divided attention and driving: a pilot study using virtual reality technology. J Head Trauma Rehabil2002; 17: 26–37.
24.
CharronCHocJ-MMilleville-PennelI. Cognitive control by brain-injured car drivers: an exploratory study. Ergonomics2010; 53: 1434–1445.
25.
HarandCMondouAChevanneD, et al.Evidence of attentional impairments using virtual driving simulation in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord2018; 25: 251–257.
26.
Milleville-PennelIPothierJHocJ, et al.Consequences of cognitive impairments following traumatic brain injury: pilot study on visual exploration while driving. Brain Inj2010; 24: 678–691.
27.
NouriFMTinsonDJ. A comparison of a driving simulator and a road test in the assessment of driving ability after a stroke. Clin Rehabil1988; 2: 99–104.
28.
LundqvistAAlinderJAlmH, et al.Neuropsychological aspects of driving after brain lesion: simulator study and on-road driving. Appl Neuropsychol1997; 4: 220–230.
29.
GianutsosR. Driving advisement with the elemental driving simulator (EDS): when less suffices. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput1994; 26: 183–186.
30.
LewHLPooleJHLeeEH, et al.Predictive validity of driving-simulator assessments following traumatic brain injury: a preliminary study. Brain Inj2005; 19: 177–188.
31.
UngewissJKüblerTSippelK, et al.Agreement of driving simulator and on-road driving performance in patients with binocular visual field loss. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol2018; 256: 2429–2435.
32.
CimolinoNBalkovecD. The contribution of a driving simulator in the driving evaluation of stroke and disabled adolescent clients. Can J Occup Ther1988; 55: 119–125.
33.
SotokawaTMurayamaTNoguchiJ, et al.Driving evaluation of mild unilateral spatial neglect patients–three high-risk cases undetected by BIT after recovery. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag, 2015, pp.253–261.
34.
UngewissJKüblerTSippelK, et al.Agreement of driving simulator and on-road driving performance in patients with binocular visual field loss. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol2018; 256: 2429–2435.
35.
LewHLPooleJHLeeEH, et al.Predictive validity of driving-simulator assessments following traumatic brain injury: a preliminary study. Brain Inj2005; 19: 177–188.
36.
LundqvistAGerdleBRönnbergJ. Neuropsychological aspects of driving after a stroke-in the simulator and on the road. Appl Cogn Psychol2000; 14: 135–150.
37.
KobayashiYOmokuteYMitsuyamaA, et al.Predictors of track test performance in drivers with stroke. Turk Neurosurg2017; 27: 530–536.
38.
DevosHBrijsTAldersG, et al.Driving performance in persons with mild to moderate symptoms of multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil2013; 35: 1387–1393.
39.
MotnikarLStojmenovaKStabaUC, et al.Exploring driving characteristics of fit- and unfit-to-drive neurological patients: a driving simulator study. Traffic Injury Prevention2020; 21: 359–364.
40.
SamuelssonKWressleE. Usability of norm values on results from a simulator device and cognitive tests in traffic medicine. Méd Devices Évid Res2022; 15: 59–70.
41.
SamuelssonKModig-ArdingIWressleE. Driving after an injury or disease affecting the brain: an analysis of clinical data. Br J Occup Ther2018; 81: 376–383.
42.
DevosHVandenbergheWNieuwboerA, et al.Predictors of fitness to drive in people with Parkinson disease. Neurology2007; 69: 1434–1441.
43.
WaldJLLiuLReilS. Concurrent validity of a virtual reality driving assessment for persons with brain injury. Cyberpsychol Behav2000; 3: 643–654.
44.
HuangLLiuXYiJ, et al.Bundled assessment to replace on-road test on driving function in stroke patients: a binary classification model via random forest. Front Aging Neurosci2025; 17: 1503672.
45.
SamuelssonKWressleE. Decisions on driving after brain injury/disease: feasibility and construct validity of a new simulator assessment tool. Br J Occup Ther2021; 84: 421–429.
46.
DevosHVandenbergheWNieuwboerA, et al.Validation of a screening battery to predict driving fitness in people with Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord2013; 28: 671–674.
47.
DevosHNieuwboerATantM, et al.Determinants of fitness to drive in Huntington disease. Neurology2012; 79: 1975–1982.
48.
JacobsMHartEPMirandaYM, et al.Altered driving performance of symptomatic Huntington’s disease gene carriers in simulated road conditions. Traffic Inj Prev2018; 19: 708–714.
49.
GrethleinDKandadaiVDampierW. Classification of drivers with HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders using virtual driving test performance data. In: Proceedings of the International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, FLAIRS, 2023.
50.
PapageorgiouEHardiessGAckermannH, et al.Collision avoidance in persons with homonymous visual field defects under virtual reality conditions. Vis Res2012; 52: 20–30.
51.
BroTAnderssonJ. The effects of visual field loss from stroke on performance in a driving simulator. Optom Vis Sci2022; 99: 679–686.
52.
BronstadMPBowersARAlbuA, et al.Hazard detection by drivers with paracentral homonymous field loss: a small case series. J Clin Exp Ophthalmol2011; 2011: 1.
53.
SzlykJPBrigellMSeipleW. Effects of age and hemianopic visual field loss on driving. Optom Vis Sci1993; 70: 1031–1037.
54.
AlbertiCFPeliEBowersAR. Driving with hemianopia: III. Detection of stationary and approaching pedestrians in a simulator. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2014; 55: 368–374.
55.
AlbertiCFGoldsteinRBPeliE, et al.Driving with hemianopia V: do individuals with hemianopia spontaneously adapt their gaze scanning to differing hazard detection demands?Transl Vis Sci Technol2017; 6: 11.
56.
BahnemannMHamelJBeukelaerSD, et al.Compensatory eye and head movements of patients with homonymous hemianopia in the naturalistic setting of a driving simulation. J Neurol2015; 262: 316–325.
57.
XuJEmmermannBBowersAR. Auditory reminder cues to promote proactive scanning on approach to intersections in drivers with homonymous hemianopia: driving with hemianopia, IX. JAMA Ophthalmol2022; 140: 75–78.
58.
SpreijLABrinkAFTVisser-MeilyJMA, et al.Simulated driving: the added value of dynamic testing in the assessment of visuo-spatial neglect after stroke. J Neuropsychol2020; 14: 28–45.
59.
UcEYRizzoMAndersonSW, et al.Driving under low-contrast visibility conditions in Parkinson disease. Neurology2009; 73: 1103–1110.
60.
GotardiGCBarbieriFASimãoRO, et al.Parkinson’s disease affects gaze behaviour and performance of drivers. Ergonomics2022; 65: 1302–1311.
61.
MönningMLahrDBlattgersteM, et al.Restitution of driving ability - training by driving lessons and driving simulator. Neurol Rehabil2002; 8: 295–301.
62.
AkinwuntanAEWeerdtWDFeysH, et al.Effect of simulator training on driving after stroke. Neurology2005; 65: 843–850.
63.
DevosHAkinwuntanAENieuwboerA, et al.Comparison of the effect of two driving retraining programs on on-road performance after stroke. Neurorehabilit Neural Repair2009; 23: 699–705.
64.
DevosHAkinwuntanAENieuwboerA, et al.Effect of simulator training on fitness-to-drive after stroke: a 5-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2010; 24: 843–850.
65.
AkinwuntanAEDevosHBakerK, et al.Improvement of driving skills in persons with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabilitation2014; 95: 531–537.
66.
Dimech-BetancourtBPonsfordJLCharltonJL, et al.Investigating feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a simulator-based driving intervention for people with acquired brain injury: a randomised controlled pilot study. Clin Rehabil2021; 35: 1277–1289.
67.
LaverKELangeBGeorgeS, et al.Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2025; 2025: CD008349.
68.
LaverKGeorgeSThomasS, et al.Cochrane review: virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med2012; 48: 523–530.
69.
GeorgeSCrottyMGelinasI, et al.Rehabilitation for improving automobile driving after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2014, 2. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008357.pub2. Epub ahead of print.
70.
DevosHRanchetMAkinwuntanAE, et al.Establishing an evidence-base framework for driving rehabilitation in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review of on-road driving studies. NeuroRehabil2015; 37: 35–52.
71.
UnsworthCABakerA. Driver rehabilitation: a systematic review of the types and effectiveness of interventions used by occupational therapists to improve on-road fitness-to-drive. Accid Anal Prevent2014; 71: 106–114.
72.
GeorgeSCrottyMGelinasI, et al.Rehabilitation for improving automobile driving after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2014; 2014: CD008357.
73.
DawsonJDRizzoMAndersonSW, et al.Collision avoidance training using a driving simulator in drivers with Parkinson’s disease: a pilot study. Proc Int Driv Symp Hum Fact Driver Assess Train Veh Des2009; 2009: 154–160.
74.
DotzauerMCaljouwSRWaardDD, et al.Longer-Term effects of ADAS use on speed and headway control in drivers diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Traffic Inj Prev2015; 16: 10–16.
75.
DevosHRanchetMAkinwuntanAE, et al.Establishing an evidence-base framework for driving rehabilitation in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review of on-road driving studies. NeuroRehabil2015; 37: 35–52.
76.
BuhmannCGerloffC. Could deep brain stimulation help with driving for patients with Parkinson’s?Expert Rev Méd Devices2014; 11: 427–429.
77.
BuhmannCMaintzLHierlingJ, et al.Effect of subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation on driving in Parkinson disease. Neurology2014; 82: 32–40.
78.
UnsworthCABakerA. Driver rehabilitation: a systematic review of the types and effectiveness of interventions used by occupational therapists to improve on-road fitness-to-drive. Accid Anal Prev2014; 71: 106–114.
79.
CaglioMLatini-CorazziniLD’agataF, et al.Video game play changes spatial and verbal memory: rehabilitation of a single case with traumatic brain injury. Cogn Process2009; 10: 195–197.
80.
AkinwuntanAEDevosHVerheydenG, et al.Retraining moderately impaired stroke survivors in driving-related visual attention skills. Top Stroke Rehabil2010; 17: 328–336.
81.
KesselMEGeurtsACHBrouwerWH, et al.Visual scanning training for neglect after stroke with and without a computerized lane tracking dual task. Front Hum Neurosci2013; 7: 358.
82.
CaglioMLatini-CorazziniLD’agataF, et al.Video game play changes spatial and verbal memory: rehabilitation of a single case with traumatic brain injury. Cogn Process2009; 10: S195–S197.
83.
KesselMEGeurtsACHBrouwerWH, et al.Visual scanning training for neglect after stroke with and without a computerized lane tracking dual task. Front Hum Neurosci2013; 7: 358.
84.
PatomellaA-HKottorpAThamK. Awareness of driving disability in people with stroke tested in a simulator. Scand J Occup Ther2008; 15: 184–192.
85.
BlaneAFalkmerTLeeHC, et al.Investigating cognitive ability and self-reported driving performance of post-stroke adults in a driving simulator. Top Stroke Rehabil2018; 25: 44–53.
86.
McKayCRapportLJBryerRC, et al.Self-evaluation of driving simulator performance after stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil2011; 18: 549–561.
87.
ParkM-O. A comparison of driving errors in patients with left or right hemispheric lesions after stroke. J Phys Ther Sci2015; 27: 3469–3471.
88.
SotokawaTNasuSIkutaJ, et al.Evaluation of driving fitness using driving simulators in patients with right-hemisphere damage: an unmatched case-control study. Top Stroke Rehabil2024; 31: 167–177.
89.
PapageorgiouEHardiessGWiethölterH, et al.The neural correlates of impaired collision avoidance in hemianopic patients. Acta Ophthalmol2012; 90: e198–e205.
90.
ChenK-HRuschMLDawsonJD, et al.Susceptibility to social pressure following ventromedial prefrontal cortex damage. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci2014; 10: 1469–1476.
91.
HungYVetiveluAHirdMA, et al.Using fMRI virtual-reality technology to predict driving ability after brain damage: a preliminary report. Neurosci Lett2014; 558: 41–46.
92.
WolbersTKüstJKarbeH, et al.Interactive driving simulation – a new approach in diagnosis and rehabilitation of driving fitness. Rehabilitation (Bonn)2001; 40: 87–91.
93.
CrislerMCBrooksJOVenhovensPJ, et al.Seniors’ and physicians’ attitudes toward using driving simulators in clinical settings. Occup Ther Heal Care2012; 26: 1–15.
94.
Dimech-BetancourtBPonsfordJLCharltonJL, et al.User experiences and perspectives of a driving simulator intervention for individuals with acquired brain injury: a qualitative study. Neuropsychol Rehabil2021; 31: 773–796.
95.
BlumenfeldMBSimmichJDoigEJ, et al.Patient and clinician perspectives of the use of driving simulators for rehabilitation after traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychol Rehabil2025: 1–22. ahead-of-print.
96.
SchultheisMTRebimbasJMourantR, et al.Examining the usability of a virtual reality driving simulator. Assist Technol2007; 19: 1–10.
97.
JacobsMZwaanKFHartEP, et al.Comparable rates of simulator sickness in Huntington’s disease and healthy individuals. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2019; 60: 499–504.
98.
JeonSSonJParkM, et al.Driving-PASS: a driving performance assessment system for stroke drivers using deep features. IEEE Access2021; 9: 21627–21641.
99.
JeonSSonJParkM, et al. Driving-PASS: An Automatic Driving Performance Assessment System for Stroke Drivers Based on ANN and SVM. In 15th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision (ICARCV), Singapore, 2018, pp.1367–1373.
100.
TaveekitworachaiPChanmasGPaliyawanP, et al.A systematic review of major evaluation metrics for simulator-based automatic assessment of driving after stroke. Heliyon2024; 10: e32930.
101.
KotterbaSWiddigWBrylakS, et al.Driving after cerebral ischemia – a driving simulator investigation. Wien Med Wochenschr2005; 155: 348–353.
102.
DevosHVandenbergheWNieuwboerA, et al.Predictors of fitness to drive in people with Parkinson disease. Neurology2007; 69: 1434–1441.
103.
ChanmasGTaveekitworachaiPPaliyawanP, et al.Driving scenarios and environmental settings in simulator-based driving assessment systems for stroke: a systematic review. Top Stroke Rehabil2023; 30: 872–880.
104.
MotnikarLStojmenovaKŠtabaUČ, et al.Exploring driving characteristics of fit- and unfit-to-drive neurological patients: a driving simulator study. Traffic Inj Prev2020; 21: 359–364.
105.
DevosDHawleyCAConnAM, et al.Driving after stroke. In: PlatzT (ed.) Clinical pathways in stroke rehabilitation. Cham: Springer, 2021.
106.
ImhoffSLavallièreMGermain-RobitailleM, et al.Training driving ability in a traumatic brain-injured individual using a driving simulator: a case report. Int Méd Case Rep J2017; 10: 41–45.
107.
TakeharaSSotokawaTTauchiY, et al.Exploring factors influencing driving simulator performance in patients with acquired brain injury using hierarchical clustering analysis of principal components. Cureus2025; 17: e82557.
108.
KraftMAmickMMBarthJT, et al.A review of driving simulator parameters relevant to the operation enduring freedom/operation Iraqi freedom veteran population. Am J Phys Med Rehabil2010; 89: 336–344.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
