Scanning rate declined significantly with advancing age, by about 1.6% per year increase in age (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.984, 95% CI = 0.977–0.992,
P < 0.001). The scanning rate denoted in terms of scans/minute throughout) was also significantly lower on the south side of the street (route 2; mean = 7.9, 95% CI = 6.7–9.5) compared to the north side (route 1; mean = 10.7, 95% CI = 9.4–12.3,
P < 0.001). Adjusting for participant age and the route, the BlindSide scanning rate was significantly higher than the SeeingSide scanning rate in LHH (SeeingSide: mean = 8.6, 95% CI = 6.4–10.9, BlindSide: mean = 12.5, 95% CI = 9.7–16.3,
P < 0.001), and RHH subjects (SeeingSide: mean = 9.6, 95% CI = 7.7–12.1, BlindSide: mean = 12.8, 95% CI = 10.2–16.0,
P = 0.002). However, there was no significant difference between the BlindSide and SeeingSide scanning rates in subjects with LHSN (SeeingSide: mean = 6.8, 95% CI = 5.4–8.7, BlindSide: mean = 7.1, 95% CI = 5.6–8.9,
P = 0.7;
Fig. 3A). Comparing among the subject groups, the scanning rate was significantly lower in subjects with LHSN (mean = 6.9, 95% CI = 5.6–8.7) than LHH (mean = 10.2, 95% CI = 8.0–13.1,
P = 0.03) and RHH (mean = 11.1, 95% CI = 9.0–13.7,
P = 0.007) subjects. Thirteen out of 19 subjects (6/6 with LHH, 3/6 with LHSN, and 4/7 with RHH) made more scans toward the BlindSide compared to the SeeingSide (and therefore had higher scan rates towards the BlindSide;
Fig. 3B), which could be considered as evidence of compensatory scanning.