ISSUE HIGHLIGHT

Nystagmus testing in intoxicated individuals

Karl Citek, O.D., Ph.D.,a Bret Ball, O.D.,a and Dale A. Rutledge, Lieutenantb

aCollege of Optometry, Pacific University, Forest Grove, Oregon and bthe Oregon State Police, Wilsonville, Oregon

Background: Law enforcement officers routinely conduct psy- n the United States, drivers impaired* by alcohol and/or
chophysical tests to determine if an impaired driver may be
intoxicated or in need of medical assistance. Testing includes
assessment of eye movements, using the Horizontal Gaze Nys-
tagmus (HGN) and Vertical Gaze Nystagmus (VGN) tests, which
I drugs are responsible for more than 16,000 deaths, one
million injuries, and $45 billion in costs annually.1 As
part of the attempt to reduce these human and economic
are conducted at roadside by patrol officers. These tests pre- tolls, law enforcement officers routinely conduct tests of eye
viously have been validated when the subject is placed in a movements to determine if a driver is under the influence
standing posture with head upright. However, certain condi- of alcohol or other drugs. Alcohol, other central nervous sys-
tions require that the subject be tested while seated or supine.
Under these conditions, Positional Alcohol Nystagmus (PAN)
tem (CNS)-depressant drugs, inhalants, and phencyclidine
could be induced and mistaken for HGN or VGN. (PCP) and its analogs will affect the neural centers in the
Methods: The study was conducted at law enforcement train-
brainstem and cerebellum, which control eye movements,
ing academy alcohol workshops in the Pacific Northwest. as well as other motor, sensory, and cognitive integration
Ninety-six volunteer drinkers were tested when sober and areas of the brain. In addition, certain antihistamines have
three times after drinking alcohol by 40 volunteer officers physiologic and cognitive effects similar to CNS-depressant
experienced in administering the tests. Blood alcohol con- drugs.
centration (BAC) was measured objectively with a calibrated
breath analysis instrument each time a subject was tested.
Blood alcohol concentration (BAC), also known as blood alco-
Results: The number of eye movement signs observed during
the HGN test at any posture increases with increasing BAC.
hol level, is either measured directly from a blood sample
The presence of VGN at any test posture occurs only in the or estimated from a breath or urine sample. BAC is com-
presence of signs of HGN and only at high levels of impair- monly reported as a percentage of alcohol weight per vol-
ment. PAN was most often observed at BACs of 0.08% and ume of blood. When impairment is due solely to the
higher, but was never confused with the observation of HGN influence of alcohol, most states and Canadian provinces
or VGN, regardless of test posture.
define the legal limit for passenger vehicle drivers as 0.08%,
Conclusions: The HGN test administered in the standing, while some states still allow the higher limit of 0.10%.
seated, and supine postures is able to discriminate impair-
ment at criterion BACs of 0.08% and 0.10%. The VGN test
can identify high levels of impairment at any test posture. Positive findings on the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus
Therefore, these tests can be used by an officer to determine (HGN) test have been shown to correlate highly with both
if a driver is impaired, regardless of whether the driver is BAC and cognitive impairment.2 The American Optomet-
standing, seated, or supine. ric Association has previously recognized the validity and
Key Words: Alcohol, blood alcohol concentration (BAC), hori- reliability of the HGN test as used by the law enforcement
zontal gaze nystagmus (HGN), impairment, law enforcement, community.3
positional alcohol nystagmus (PAN), vertical gaze nystagmus
(VGN) * The inability to safely operate a motor vehicle. This may be cog-
Citek K, Ball B, and Rutledge DA. Nystagmus testing in intoxi- nitive (e.g., abnormal perception of time and space) or physical (e.g.,
cated individuals. Optometry 2003;74:695-710. restricted use of a limb or uncorrectable vision loss).
695
VOLUME 74/NUMBER 11/NOVEMBER 2003 OPTOMETRY
ISSUE HIGHLIGHT

Officers conduct the HGN test at roadside as part A recent study has demonstrated a high correla-
of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs).4-6 tion of HGN results between standing and seated
The HGN test assesses lack of smooth pursuit, postures for low BACs.13 The goals of the current
sustained endpoint nystagmus, and induced study are to confirm the validity and reliability
nystagmus prior to a lateral gaze angle of 45 of the HGN and VGN tests in the standing pos-
degrees. Recently, the Vertical Gaze Nystagmus ture and to establish their validity and reliability
(VGN) test has been added to the SFST training in the seated and supine postures for BACs up to
for patrol officers.4 The VGN test assesses nys- and above the legal limit for all the United States
tagmus induced in upgaze. and Canada.

Collectively, the SFSTs are used to establish prob- Review of impaired eye movements
able cause for arrest on a Driving Under the Influ-
ence (DUI) charge and subsequent request for a The eye movements of an impaired individual dif-
breath, blood, or urine sample, in order to objec- fer dramatically in appearance from those of a nor-
tively measure the BAC. These tests also are con- mal, sober individual and are easily observed by
ducted by specially trained officers as part of the a trained officer, without the need for any spe-
Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) evaluation when cialized or sophisticated equipment. Fine-motor
the presence of a drug (or drugs other than or in control of the eyes is characterized by the ability
addition to alcohol) is suspected.7 Results of these to make smooth-pursuit movements and to prop-
tests assist the officer in accurately and reliably erly fixate stationary targets either straight ahead
determining the presence of CNS-depressant or to the side. Virtually all normal individuals can
drugs, inhalants, and PCP.8,9 make smooth pursuit eye movements to track tar-
gets up to 30 deg/sec, and most can track targets
The procedure of the HGN test was standardized at speeds up to 100 deg/sec.14 If a target moves too
more than 20 years ago by the National Highway quickly for the smooth pursuit system to track
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).10,11 In the accurately, brief catch-up saccades will be inter-
mid 1980’s, NHTSA standardized the procedure posed during the eye movement and the eyes will
of the VGN test as part of the DRE evaluation.12 be seen to jerk as they follow the target. For
As currently taught, both procedures require that impaired individuals, catch-up saccades are read-
the suspect stands erect with feet together, hands ily evident for target speeds of about 30 deg/sec.
at the sides, and head upright, facing forward. At high levels of impairment, an individual can
even lose the ability to make saccades and, thus,
However, there are numerous situations in which will be able to follow a moving target only by mov-
conducting the tests in the standing posture would ing the entire head and/or upper body.
be unsafe or impossible. The most common of
these occurs when the suspect is significantly taller Fixation of a stationary target involves the same
than the officer, such that the officer would not be neural centers in the brainstem and cerebellum
able to see the standing suspect’s eyes without seri- as smooth pursuits, and may be thought of as a
ously compromising the officer’s safety. Adverse “zero-velocity” pursuit eye movement.14 If fixation
weather conditions can make testing at roadside of a peripheral target cannot be maintained cor-
dangerous for both the officer and the suspect. The rectly, the eyes will drift back toward the center
suspect might be disabled or otherwise unable to and jerk quickly toward the target. The drift
stand upright as instructed. Stops at sobriety check- toward the center represents the slow phase of the
points may require the officer to make an initial resulting nystagmus, while the jerk toward the
assessment of a driver who is seated behind the target represents the fast phase. Thus, the direc-
wheel of the vehicle. Finally, the officer may be tion of the fast phase will change with the direc-
called to the scene of an accident in which the tion of gaze.
injured driver already is secured to a gurney or
backboard by paramedics. In such cases, the offi- Many normal, sober individuals initially will
cer must be sure the impairment and eye signs are show one or two beats of small-amplitude nys-
not due to a medical emergency, such as head tagmus when the eyes are moved to extreme lat-
injury, stroke, or seizure, or to inappropriate, or eral gaze positions.15 This is alternately termed
inadvertent visual or vestibular stimulation, such endpoint nystagmus or nystagmus at maximum devi-
as optokinetic nystagmus or positional nystagmus. ation. The nystagmus usually dissipates within 1
696
OPTOMETRY VOLUME 74/NUMBER 11/NOVEMBER 2003
 ISSUE HIGHLIGHT

Table 1. Demographic data for the drinking volunteers in the study

Female Male
Age (yrs) Number 37 59
Mean (SD) 30.0 (8.4) 28.3 (8.1)
Minimum 21.0 21.2
Maximum 51.2 62.8
Weight (lbs) Mean (SD) 150.2 (36.6) 198.0 (28.6)
Minimum 100 148
Maximum 270 283
Ethnicity Asian 1 0
African–American 0 2
White 36 57
Prescription for driving Spectacles 7 8
Contact lenses 9 8
Pre-test Equal pupil sizes 37 58
Equal tracking 37 59

SD, Standard deviation.

to 2 seconds, if gaze is maintained at such a posi- mary gaze when the head is tipped or tilted to a
tion. On the other hand, impaired individuals typ- non-upright position. PAN originally was con-
ically demonstrate distinct, large-amplitude sidered to be a very sensitive diagnostic assess-
nystagmus that is sustained for several seconds ment of alcohol intoxication.19 This may be true
at these positions.10,11 in a clinical or laboratory setting, but it is not
helpful to the officer in the field who does not
Fatigue nystagmus will occur in normal, sober indi- have the testing equipment necessary to make the
viduals when gaze is maintained at an extreme careful measurements. Nonetheless, officers
lateral position for 30 seconds or more.15 A recent must be aware that an unintentional head tilt by
study suggests that lack of sleep may exaggerate the subject may induce PAN, which may con-
normal endpoint nystagmus,16 but no other stud- found or exacerbate the other eye movements the
ies are known to prove that sleeplessness or sys- officer is testing.
temic fatigue affect any other eye movements.

Gaze-evoked, gaze-induced, or, simply gaze nys-

Methods
tagmus is a sustained nystagmus prior to an Alcohol workshops
extreme lateral gaze position. It is indicative of Alcohol workshops are used to train recruits on
neurological damage if it occurs unilaterally or the use of SFSTs and to re-acquaint officers who
asymmetrically, and of alcohol and/or drug are training to become DREs with specifics of the
impairment if it is bilateral and somewhat sym- SFSTs. Workshops usually last about 3 to 4 hours,
metric.17 In addition, high levels of alcohol impair- during which subjects receive measured doses of
ment, or impairment with certain drugs, either alcoholic beverages for about 2 hours, as well as
alone or in combination with alcohol, may pro- snack foods. Some subjects are purposely
duce sustained, large-amplitude bilateral vertical recruited as “placebo drinkers,” maintaining zero
nystagmus in upgaze but not downgaze.17 or low BACs throughout the workshop. Each sub-
ject’s BAC is carefully monitored throughout the
Alcohol will alter the viscosity of the endolymph workshop.
in the vestibular apparatus. This will affect the
individual’s sense of balance and any eye move- The current study was conducted at nine regu-
ments that are influenced by the vestibular sys- larly scheduled workshops in Oregon, Washing-
tem.18 Depending on the relative concentrations ton, and Idaho. Evaluations were performed by
of alcohol in the blood and endolymph, positional experienced officers in a room or area separate
alcohol nystagmus (PAN) may be induced in pri- from the training area, in order to avoid dis-
697
VOLUME 74/NUMBER 11/NOVEMBER 2003 OPTOMETRY
ISSUE HIGHLIGHT

rupting the trainees. Subjects

were evaluated at four different
times during each workshop.
Baseline evaluations were per-
formed at the beginning of the
workshop, before the subject’s
first drink; BAC measurements
confirmed that all subjects
started with blood alcohol levels
of 0.00%. The first set of evalu-
ations was conducted about 1
hour after the start of drinking,
the second set was conducted at
the end of the 2-hour drinking
period, and the final set was con-
ducted at the end of the work-
shop, at least 1 hour after the last
drink. Subjects did not consume
any alcohol during the evalua-
tions or BAC measurements.
Subjects worked with the
trainees as part of the regular
workshop in the period between Figure 1 Demonstration of Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test in seated posture.

the second and final sets of eval-

uations. Evaluators
Forty law enforcement officers, all certified DREs
Subjects and/or SFST instructors, volunteered as evaluators
for the study. Officers had no other training duties
Ninety-six volunteer drinkers—37 female and 59
or responsibilities during the workshops. Officers
male—participated in the study. Subjects were
were recruited solely on the basis of their avail-
recruited from local colleges, military bases, pros-
ability, and not on their experience or agency affil-
ecutors’ and attorneys’ offices, and police acad-
iation. Table 2 lists the officers, their agencies, and
emy offices. Each subject signed an informed
their relevant experience. Several officers, not
consent form.
indicated in Table 2, participated in more than
one workshop each.
Subjects were recruited solely on the basis of their
availability, and not on their age, gender, weight, Each evaluator tested subjects only in one of three
or ethnicity. Subject demographic data are sum- test postures (see later discussion). In order to
marized in Table 1. Table 1 also summarizes the mask evaluators from the results at the different
types of prescription lenses used for driving, as postures, evaluators were discouraged from dis-
well as equality of pupil sizes and ability to fol- cussing their results during the workshop. Eval-
low a stimulus (see Test Procedures) before the uators also were masked from the BAC
consumption of alcohol. measurements taken during the workshop.

All subjects were of legal drinking age and Six evaluators were available at each workshop
acknowledged varying levels of experience with conducted in Washington and Idaho, and at two
drinking alcohol. None of the subjects reported of the workshops in Oregon, evaluating a total of
fatigue, presence of any health conditions, or use 25 female and 43 male subjects. Thus, each sub-
of any medications that precluded participation ject was tested separately by two evaluators at
in the study. Three subjects at two workshops each posture at each test time. Three evaluators
were unable to complete the testing; nonetheless, were available at each of the three remaining
their data for the portions completed are workshops in Oregon, evaluating a total of 12
included in the analyses we discuss here. female and 16 male subjects. These subjects were

698
OPTOMETRY VOLUME 74/NUMBER 11/NOVEMBER 2003
 ISSUE HIGHLIGHT

In the seated posture, the subject

sat in an armless chair or folding
chair, with head upright and
turned approximately 45 degrees
to the side. The evaluator stood
to the same side as the subject’s
turned head, such that the sub-
ject always directly faced the
evaluator (see Figure 1).

In the supine posture, subjects

laid flat on their back atop
stacked gym mats at a height of
about 18 inches (46 cm). Subjects
were instructed to keep their
heads straight and in line with
their bodies for all testing, except
PAN (see below for clarification),
and evaluators were instructed to
perform the tests from directly
above the subjects (see Figure 2).

BAC measurements
Blood alcohol levels were
assessed at each test time during
each workshop using calibrated
breath analysis instruments and
procedures equivalent to those
required by each state for the
assessment of an actual DUI sus-
pect. Certified breath analysis
specialists performed measure-
ments using Intoxilyzer 5000
instruments in Oregon and
Idaho, and DataMaster instru-
ments in Washington. To estab-
Figure 2 Demonstration of Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test in supine posture. lish BAC, Oregon requires only
a single reading, whereas Idaho
and Washington require two
tested once at each posture at each test time. readings. All Idaho and Washington measure-
Combining data from all workshops, there was a ments reported here are the averages of the
maximum of 164 evaluations at each posture at respective readings for each subject. The mean
each test time. difference and standard deviation for all pairs of
readings from Idaho and Washington are both
Test postures 0.003%.
Testing was conducted on each subject in three
postures: standing, seated, and supine. The stand- One subject at a Washington workshop, who did
ing posture was consistent with that recom- not complete the testing, was given a single meas-
mended by NHTSA guidelines and previous urement at the first and only evaluation time with
validation studies,4,20-22 in that subjects stood with a calibrated portable breath test instrument, so as
feet together, hands at the sides, and head upright, to avoid possible contamination of the DataMaster
facing forward. instrument.

699
VOLUME 74/NUMBER 11/NOVEMBER 2003 OPTOMETRY
ISSUE HIGHLIGHT

Table 2. Officers, listed alphabetically by state, who volunteered as evaluators for this
study, including years of experience as certified Drug Recognition Experts (DREs)
and/or Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) instructors
State Evaluator Agency DRE SFST
Oregon Deputy Scott Bressler Benton County SO 3 9
Officer David Driscoll Salem PD 6 13
Trooper Timothy Fox SP 4 6
Deputy Dustin Frenzel Linn County SO — 3
Officer Robert Hayes Albany PD 3 —
Sergeant Lance Inman Keizer PD 3 4
Trooper Michael Iwai SP 2 —
Trooper Eric Judah SP 3 —
Officer Kristina Knox Salem PD 5 4
Officer David Leday Keizer PD 4 3
Officer Tim Lenihan* Myrtle Creek PD 5 4
Deputy Timothy McCall Harney County SO 1 2
Trooper David Peterson SP 5 —
Sergeant Robert Ruark Polk County SO 1 <1
Lieutenant Trace Schreiner DPSST 3 4
Officer Justin Stevenson Dallas PD 1 1
Officer K.T. Taylor Sandy PD — 2
Sergeant Tim Weaver* Newberg PD 2 2
Trooper Steve Webster SP 6 6
Washington Trooper James Aye SP 2 —
Trooper Curt Boyle SP 3 3
Trooper Nathan Elias SP 1 —
Trooper Steve Gardner SP 2 —
Trooper Darrell Hash SP 4 3
Officer Michael Henry Puyallup PD 4 3
Trooper Harlan Jackson SP 3 <1
Officer Theresa Kubala Vancouver PD 1 <1
Trooper Bruce Lantz SP 4 <1
Trooper Darrin Latimer SP 3 —
Trooper Brian Mihelich Sp <1 —
Trooper Shane Nelson SP 1 —
Trooper D.A. O’Neill SP 4 1
Officer Kelly Parsons Walla Walla PD 3 <1
Deputy J. Sousley Pierce County SO 2 1
Trooper Keith Trowbridge SP 3 —
Trooper David Wilbur SP 3 3
Idaho Corporal Craig Boll SP 3 —
Trooper T.J. Harms SP 1 —
Trooper Timothy Horn SP 2 —
Sergeant Timothy Johnson SP 5 3
Trooper Edward Robertson Sp 2 —
Corporal Lance Rogers McCall PD 1 1

SP, State Police/Patrol; PD, Police Department; SO, Sheriff’s Office/Department; and DPSST, Department of Public Safety and Training.
* Participated in pilot study only.

Test procedures glasses or contact lenses, and for ocular redness

and excessive tearing.4 They also assess the sub-
Pre-test
ject’s pupil sizes and tracking ability. Previously
At the start of the eye movement tests of the undiagnosed anisocoria may indicate a recent
SFSTs, officers check for the presence of eye- head injury, such as trauma or stroke. Inability

700
OPTOMETRY VOLUME 74/NUMBER 11/NOVEMBER 2003
 ISSUE HIGHLIGHT

to follow the stimulus or non-congenital nystag- subject’s face, approximately 12 to 15 inches (30
mus—especially in primary gaze—also may indi- to 38 cm) from the subject’s nose and slightly
cate a head injury or the presence of drugs other above eye level. This elevated eye position raised
than alcohol. The appearance of “bloodshot, the upper lids and allowed the evaluator a better
watery eyes” may suggest recent exposure of the view of the eyes, but did not affect the results of
subject to a noxious environment, such as a the test. The subject was instructed to keep his
smoke-filled room, but also occurs in response to or her head still and follow the stimulus with the
the dehydrating effects of ingested alcohol. eyes only. The subject’s left eye was observed first
during each of the three component tests.
Testing normally is not performed if the subject
has congenital nystagmus, restricted eye move- Smooth pursuit was assessed by moving the stim-
ments (i.e., noted by the officer as “inability to fol- ulus to extreme left gaze and then to extreme right
low the stimulus”), or blindness or loss of one eye. gaze at about 30 deg/sec. The test was repeated
Otherwise, spectacles are removed during testing at least once for each eye. Nystagmus at maxi-
to allow the officer to see the subject’s eyes when mum deviation was assessed by moving the stim-
the stimulus is moved to lateral and upgaze posi- ulus first to extreme left gaze, then to extreme
tions. The officer confirms that the subject can see right gaze, such that no temporal sclera showed
the stimulus—usually a pen, penlight, or finger- at either position, and held at each position for
tip—before starting the test. Soft or rigid contact at least 4 seconds. Onset of gaze nystagmus was
lenses are kept in place, as they should not affect assessed by moving the stimulus at about 15
the testing. If they are properly fit and main- deg/sec to each side until nystagmus was
tained, they should not be displaced or fall out observed. If nystagmus was present, the evalua-
during testing. tor determined whether the angle of onset was
less than 45 degrees.
We have found that uncorrected high refractive
error (>± 8.00 D), astigmatism (0.50 and above The HGN test is scored by the number of signs
at any axis), anisometropia (more than 1 D), present for the two eyes, scoring one sign each
amblyopia (two lines difference), and strabismus per eye for lack of smooth pursuit, sustained nys-
are not automatic disqualifiers for conducting the tagmus at maximum deviation, and onset of gaze
tests, since the stimulus does not have a high nystagmus prior to 45 degrees. Therefore, the
visual acuity demand, and since eye movements maximum number of signs is six. Previous lab-
are not necessarily restricted with these condi- oratory and field validation studies have consis-
tions. Other pathological conditions, in the tently demonstrated that the presence of four or
absence of medications that fall into any of the more signs is highly correlated with BAC at either
drug categories described earlier, do not produce 0.10%10,11 or 0.08%.21,22,29
eye movements that are similar to those observed
with intoxication. For example, acquired nystag- Vertical gaze nystagmus (VGN)
mus in vestibular diseases,17 multiple sclerosis,23 Testing was conducted in the same manner in all
and a rare case of glaucoma24 occur in primary test postures, consistent with NHTSA guide-
gaze or with non-upright head positions. Likewise, lines.4,20 The stimulus was held in front of the
changes in saccades and smooth pursuits with dia- subject’s face, approximately 12 to 15 inches (30
betes,25 glaucoma,26 multiple sclerosis,27 and optic to 38 cm) from the subject’s nose. The subject was
neuritis27 will appear different than those instructed to keep his or her head still and follow
assessed during the HGN test. Viral infections, the stimulus with eyes only. The stimulus was
such as cold and flu, will affect eye movements raised until the subject’s eyes were in extreme
only if there is active involvement of the upgaze, and held at that position for approxi-
vestibular system or in the presence of impairing mately 4 seconds. Sustained vertical nystagmus
drugs.28 indicated a positive result.

Horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) Positional alcohol nystagmus (PAN)

Testing was conducted in the same manner in all Officers normally do not assess PAN, but it is
test postures, consistent with NHTSA guide- mentioned in the training manual as a type of nys-
lines.4,20 The stimulus was held in front of the tagmus of which they must be aware.4 PAN may

701
VOLUME 74/NUMBER 11/NOVEMBER 2003 OPTOMETRY
ISSUE HIGHLIGHT

be induced in an alcohol-
impaired individual when the
head is tilted with respect to
straight ahead, with the nystag-
mus present in primary gaze.
Previous research has demon-
strated that PAN is not induced
in a supine posture, when the
head is in line with the body.18
The presence of PAN is easily
differentiated from the types of
nystagmus expected during the
HGN and VGN tests due to the
non-upright head position and
straight-ahead gaze.

In this study, in the standing and

seated postures, the presence of
A
PAN was assessed by having the
subject tilt the head toward
either shoulder (see Figure 3, A).
In the supine posture, the subject
turned the head to the side
toward the evaluator (see Figure
3, B). In all test postures, the sub-
ject maintained fixation on the
stimulus held approximately 12
to 15 inches (30 to 38 cm) from
the nose. Nystagmus in primary
gaze indicated a positive result.

Results
Demographic data
The average age of all subjects B
was 29.0 years; ranging from 21
to 62 years (see Table 1). There Figure 3
Demonstration of test for Positional Alcohol Nystagmus (PAN) in A, standing and
B, supine postures. Test for PAN in seated posture (not shown) incorporates head tilt
was no significant difference in identical to that in standing posture.
subject ages based on gender
(p = 0.351). There was a significant difference under the given conditions. Anisocoria was noted
in subject weights based on gender (p = 0), in a single subject in Oregon. The condition was
with males consistently heavier than females. determined to be longstanding, the subject was
aware of it, and it did not affect testing in any
The high percentage of white subjects (97%) way. All subsequent results are reported without
reflects the population of the Pacific Northwest. regard to gender, weight, ethnicity, or type of oph-
Follow-up studies with more ethnically diverse thalmic prescription.
populations are encouraged. Thirty-two subjects
(33%) wore or reported the need to wear either
spectacles or contact lenses for driving. Lens pre- Blood alcohol levels
scriptions were not considered in this study, as BAC measurements were taken toward the end
the only criterion was the ability of the subject or after each set of evaluations, on average
to see and follow the stimulus used by the eval- between 4.5 and 23.5 minutes from the midpoint
uator; no subjects had difficulty with these tasks of any given set of evaluations. The longest time

702
OPTOMETRY VOLUME 74/NUMBER 11/NOVEMBER 2003
 ISSUE HIGHLIGHT

Figure 4 For each test posture and BAC range, average number of HGN signs observed at each BAC range, with standard error bars.

difference for an individual subject was about 50 signs typically appear in the order of per-
minutes. Since the typical elimination rate of alco- formance of the HGN test, and symmetrically
hol is about 0.015% per hour for an average in the two eyes, with increasing levels of
adult,30 the measurements provide an accurate impairment.
assessment of the BACs of the subjects during
each set of evaluations. Baseline evaluations of sober subjects
Of the 164 evaluations conducted at each test pos-
Of the 284 total measures, 156 (54.9%) were at ture at baseline, fewer than 10% at any posture
0.08% and higher; 95 of all measures (33.5%) demonstrated (at most) three HGN signs. There
were at 0.10% and higher. The highest individ- are no significant differences based on test pos-
ual BACs were 0.189% for a subject in Wash- ture for lack of smooth pursuit, sustained nys-
ington, 0.179% for an Idaho subject, and 0.176% tagmus at maximum deviation, and onset of gaze
for an Oregon subject. nystagmus prior to 45 degrees (all p > 0.09).

HGN Only one evaluator observed four signs (endpoint

Because of variations in physiology and neu- nystagmus in both eyes and gaze nystagmus prior
rology in otherwise normal, sober subjects, an to 45 degrees in both eyes) on a single subject in
officer may observe individual signs during the standing posture, but these signs were not
HGN testing that appear similar to the signs observed by evaluators in the seated and supine
observed when the subject is impaired. 6 postures. At no posture during the baseline eval-
Nonetheless, the overall number and pattern of uations were five or six signs observed on any
signs observed in a sober subject will be dif- subject. There is no significant difference based
ferent than those seen in an impaired subject. on test posture for the number of HGN signs
Also, as borne out by the results of this study, observed (p = 0.518).

703
VOLUME 74/NUMBER 11/NOVEMBER 2003 OPTOMETRY
ISSUE HIGHLIGHT

Table 3. Sensitivity, false alarm rate, accuracy, and detectability index for HGN data at
each test posture at two criterion blood alcohol concentration (0.08% and 0.10%)*
Posture
BAC = 0.08% Standing Seated Supine McKnight et al.
Sensitivity 0.890 0.799 0.891 0.75
False alarm rate 0.367 0.285 0.462 0.32
Accuracy 77.3% 76.1% 73.0% 71%
d’ 1.568 1.407 1.326 1.15
BAC = 0.10% Standing Seated Supine Good and Augsburger
Sensitivity 0.956 0.887 0.969 0.96
False alarm rate 0.503 0.408 0.561 0.82
Accuracy 64.7% 68.9% 61.3% 90%
d’ 1.698 1.442 1.708 0.88

d’, Detectability index; HGN, horizontal gaze nystagmus; and BAC, blood alcohol concentration.
* Included for comparison are calculations based on the data recorded by McKnight et al.,29 testing in a seated posture, and Good and Augsburger,
5 testing in a standing posture.

Test evaluations—Analysis by BAC relation coefficient of 0.65 between BAC and

Figure 4 shows the average number of HGN HGN tested in the standing posture, while
signs, and standard error of the mean, at each test McKnight et al.29 reported correlations of 0.56 and
posture and range of BACs. Note that all but the 0.55 for the standing and seated postures,
last of the non-zero BAC ranges are in increments respectively. The correlations of the current study
of 0.02%; only one subject achieved a blood alco- are not significantly different from those reported
hol level above 0.18% for a single measurement. by either Stuster and Burns or McKnight et al. (all
p > 0.13).
Chi-square analysis shows that there is a statis-
tically significant difference in the number of Nonetheless, the purpose of a sobriety test is not
HGN signs observed based on test posture, χ2(12) to estimate an individual’s BAC, but to determine
= 45.49; p = 0. Compared to the standing pos- if that individual is impaired: if the impairment
ture, evaluators typically observed fewer signs in is due solely to alcohol intoxication, the sobriety
the seated posture and more signs in the supine test can discriminate whether the individual is
posture. However, for subjects with BACs above over or under the legal limit for BAC.10 Signal
0.06%, the greatest difference in the mean num- detection theory provides several measures that
ber of signs observed at the different test postures describe the ability of a test to discriminate at a
is less than one. Thus, while the differences may given criterion level.31 Sensitivity, also known as
be statistically significant, they are not of prac- the true positive ratio, is the proportion of sub-
tical significance for the officer in the field. Note jects who show a positive test result to all sub-
that, on average, evaluators consistently observed jects who actually have the given condition. The
more than four signs for BACs of 0.10% and false alarm rate is the proportion of subjects who
higher, and about four signs for BACs between show a positive test result to all subjects who do
0.08 and 0.10%. not have the given condition. Accuracy is the per-
centage of subjects correctly identified as having
The relationship between each subject’s BAC and the condition and not having the condition. An
the number of HGN signs observed by each eval- ideal test will have sensitivity equal to one, false
uator is given by the correlation coefficient. The alarm rate of zero, and accuracy of 100%. The
coefficients for the current study are all very high detectability index, d’, is a measure of the ability
and statistically significant at p = 0: for the stand- of the test to discriminate signal from noise, or—
ing posture, r = 0.63; for the seated posture, r = in the present context—to determine if a test can
0.59; and for the supine posture, r = 0.59. By discriminate a finding from a random or chance
comparison, Stuster and Burns22 reported a cor- result.32

704
OPTOMETRY VOLUME 74/NUMBER 11/NOVEMBER 2003
 ISSUE HIGHLIGHT

Figure 5 Percentage of evaluations at each test posture in which VGN was observed for the given BAC ranges.

Table 4. Inter-posture reliabilities, test–retest reliabilities, and test–retest accuracy for the
HGN test conducted at different postures and by pairs of evaluators*
Reliability Accuracy
Posture: Seated Supine Test–retest Test–retest
Standing 0.672 0.616 0.589 76.1%
Seated — 0.638 0.653 73.1%
Supine — — 0.713 84.7%

HGN, Horizontal gaze nystagmus.

* All reliabilities are significant at p = 0.

Sensitivity, false alarm rate, accuracy, and d’ of Good and Augsburger used a criterion BAC of
the HGN test at each test posture for each of two 0.10%, which was the legal limit in Ohio at the
criterion BACs, 0.08% and 0.10%, are shown in time of that study, with HGN conducted in the
Table 3. Sensitivity and accuracy are consistently standing posture. In contrast, McKnight et al. used
very good for all measures, and false alarm rates a criterion BAC of 0.08%, with HGN conducted
are acceptable, given the fact that the result of the in a seated posture.
HGN test provides only one of many possible
pieces of evidence of impairment to an officer.4
All d’s are significant at p = 0, indicating that the Inter-posture and inter-evaluator reliability
evaluators could correctly discriminate impair- Separate evaluators conducted testing at the dif-
ment at all postures for either criterion BAC. Table ferent postures. In addition, most tests were con-
3 also shows comparable results for Good and ducted by two evaluators at each posture,
Augsburger5 and McKnight et al.29 Note that allowing an assessment of test–retest reliability.

705
VOLUME 74/NUMBER 11/NOVEMBER 2003 OPTOMETRY
ISSUE HIGHLIGHT

Table 5. Sensitivity, false alarm rate, accuracy, and detectability index for VGN data at each
test posture at two criterion blood alcohol concentrations (0.08% and 0.10%)*
Posture
BAC = 0.08% Standing Seated Supine
Sensitivity 0.215 0.289 0.485
False alarm rate 0.032 0.041 0.072
Accuracy 0.560 0.594 0.687
d’ 1.066 1.184 1.420
BAC = 0.10% Standing Seated Supine
Sensitivity 0.268 0.371 0.610
False alarm rate 0.065 0.080 0.144
Accuracy 0.718 0.739 0.775
d’ 1.897 1.074 1.341

d’, Detectability index; VGN, vertical gaze nystagmus; and BAC, blood alcohol concentration.

Table 6. Inter-posture reliabilities, test–retest reliabilities, and test–retest accuracy for the
VGN test conducted at different postures and by pairs of evaluators*
Reliability Accuracy
Posture: Seated Supine Test–retest Test–retest
Standing 0.324 0.357 0.369 85.4%
Seated — 0.391 0.401 83.0%
Supine — — 0.515 79.7%

VGN, Vertical gaze nystagmus.

* All reliabilities are significant at p = 0.

The reliability of the HGN test, both between dif- For all test postures, there is no correlation
ferent postures and for test–retest, is given by the between evaluator experience and the number of
correlation coefficient. For psychomotor tests, HGN signs observed. All correlation coefficients
such as HGN, a highly reliable test has a corre- are close to zero (|r| < 0.15), and not significant
lation coefficient of about 0.7.33 Test–retest accu- (all p > 0.05).
racy is a measure of the consistency between
evaluators. VGN
Table 4 shows the inter-posture and test–retest VGN is not expected in normal, sober subjects in
reliabilities, as well as the test–retest accuracies the absence of neurological problems. With the
for the current study. By comparison, the HGN use of alcohol alone, VGN may not appear until
test conducted in the standing posture previ- a high level of impairment is achieved, as defined
ously has been shown to have test–retest reli- for the individual subject.4 VGN may be present
ability of 0.59:11 this is not significantly when other CNS-depressant drugs, inhalants, or
different from any of the test–retest reliabilities PCP are used, either separately or in combination,
for the current study (all p > 0.40). On the other or with alcohol.
hand, McKnight et al.13 reported a correlation
of 0.94 between the results of the standing and Baseline evaluations of sober subjects
seated postures. This is very likely due to the Of the 164 evaluations conducted at each test pos-
fact that the same evaluator tested each subject ture at baseline, VGN was observed on only a sin-
in both postures in that study, whereas the cur- gle subject by one evaluator in the supine posture.
rent study used different evaluators for each However, VGN was not observed on the same
posture. subject by the same evaluator at the first evalu-

706
OPTOMETRY VOLUME 74/NUMBER 11/NOVEMBER 2003
 ISSUE HIGHLIGHT

Table 7. Number of evaluations at each test posture in which HGN and VGN were observed*
Posture
HGN observed? VGN observed? Standing Seated Supine
Yes Yes 62 79 144
Yes No 251 194 193
No Yes 1 6 0

HGN, Horizontal gaze nystagmus and VGN, vertical gaze nystagmus.

* Presence of HGN is determined by the observation of at least four signs during testing.

ation, when the subject had a blood alcohol level Table 5. All d’s are significant at p = 0. While the
of 0.02%. It also was not observed by any other sensitivities are all relatively low, the false alarm
evaluator in any other test posture either at base- rates are excellent, and the accuracies are very
line or the first evaluation. good.

Test evaluations—Analysis by BAC Inter-posture and inter-evaluator reliability

Figure 5 shows the percentage of evaluations at Reliabilities between test postures and pairs of
which VGN was observed at each test posture for evaluators, and test–retest accuracies, were
the given BAC ranges. Chi-square analysis shows determined as for the HGN test discussed earlier.
that there is a statistically significant difference Table 6 shows the inter-posture and test–retest
in the observation of VGN based on test posture, reliabilities, as well as the test–retest accuracies
χ2(2) = 44.43; p = 0. Compared to the standing for the VGN test.
posture, VGN typically was observed more fre-
quently in the seated and supine postures.
For all test postures, there is no correlation
between evaluator experience and the obser-
However, the differences based on test posture are
vation of VGN. All correlation coefficients are
only evident for BACs at 0.08% and higher. Of the
close to zero (|r| < 0.09), and not significant (all
221 evaluations conducted at each test posture on
p > 0.05).
subjects with BACs below 0.08%, VGN was
observed only on seven subjects (3.2%) in the
standing posture, nine subjects (4.1%) in the Combined results of HGN and VGN tests
seated posture, and 16 subjects (7.2%) in the Table 7 shows the number of evaluations at each
supine posture. These findings do not differ sig- test posture in which HGN and VGN were
nificantly (p = 0.112). On the other hand, for sub- observed. Presence of HGN is determined by the
jects with BACs of 0.08% and higher, VGN was observation of at least four signs during testing.
observed in 21.5% of evaluations in the standing The data are consistent with the fact that when
posture, 28.9% in the seated posture, and 48.5% impairment is due to alcohol and/or drugs, VGN
in the supine posture. At BACs of 0.10% and will be present only when HGN is present.4 For
higher, the percentages of observations at each the single evaluation in the standing posture in
posture were 26.8%, 37.1%, and 61.0%, respec- which VGN was observed and HGN was not, the
tively. evaluator did note two signs of HGN and the
subject’s BAC was 0.09%. All six evaluations in
The correlation coefficients, relating each subject’s the seated posture, in which VGN was observed
BAC to the observation of VGN by each evalua- and HGN was not, were conducted by the same
tor, are all good and statistically significant (all evaluator. The evaluator noted either two or
p = 0): for the standing posture, r = 0.35; for three HGN signs for each evaluation, and three
the seated posture, r = 0.37; and for the supine of these subjects had BACs above 0.08%. Thus,
posture, r = 0.52. the observation of VGN alone would have cor-
rectly identified four of the seven subjects as
Sensitivity, false alarm rate, accuracy, and d’ of above the 0.08% limit for BAC. In all seven
the VGN test at each test posture for each of two cases, it is most likely that the evaluators expe-
criterion BACs, 0.08% and 0.10%, are shown in rienced difficulty observing the subjects’ eyes,
707
VOLUME 74/NUMBER 11/NOVEMBER 2003 OPTOMETRY
ISSUE HIGHLIGHT

but the data demonstrate that this was not a Evaluators conducting the test in the seated pos-
widespread or overwhelming problem for the ture occasionally reported difficulty seeing the
study. subject’s eye that was opposite the head turn. On
the other hand, evaluators conducting the test in
PAN the supine posture could easily shift position
either along or across the subject’s body to bet-
Results are presented to demonstrate that officers ter observe the eyes during each part of the test.
can correctly identify and distinguish PAN from
other types of nystagmus. It is not the intention Nonetheless, these differences do not suggest that
of this study to include the observation of PAN impaired seated subjects would be mistaken as
during an actual DUI or DRE evaluation. Thus, sober, nor that sober supine subjects would be
it is of little value to report sensitivity analysis val- mistaken as impaired. As shown in Figure 4, eval-
ues or reliabilities. For the interested reader, those uators typically observed fewer than two signs on
values are very similar to those reported for the subjects with BACs below 0.04%, and four or
VGN test discussed earlier. more signs on subjects with BACs at 0.10% and
higher, regardless of posture. For subjects with
Baseline evaluations of sober subjects
BACs between 0.08% and 0.10%, evaluators
Of the 164 evaluations conducted at each test pos- observed (on average) about 4.5 signs in the stand-
ture at baseline, PAN was observed on only two ing and supine postures and 3.9 signs in the
subjects at one workshop by the same evaluator seated posture. While statistically significant,
in the standing posture. However, PAN was not these differences are not of practical significance
observed on the same subjects by any of the other to the officer in the field.
five evaluators.
We recommend that the officer who needs to con-
Test evaluations—Analysis by BAC duct the HGN test in the seated posture position
Chi-square analysis shows that there is a statis- the subject in such a way that the subject’s eyes
tically significant difference in the observation of can be seen easily throughout the test. This may
PAN based on test posture, χ2(2) = 41.80; p = 0. involve asking the subject to turn the body
PAN was observed with approximately equal fre- slightly at the waist, in addition to the head turn
quency in the standing and seated postures, but used in the current study. Such a minor change
with greater frequency in the supine posture. in posture will not affect the results.
Nonetheless, PAN was observed in fewer than
10% of all evaluations with BAC below 0.08%. In We also confirm that VGN is present only when
addition, because of the head tilt required to signs of HGN are present, and that the VGN test
induce PAN, it should never be mistaken as a sign can be used to identify high levels of impairment
of HGN or VGN. at any test posture. Again, we attribute the sta-
tistical difference in observation of VGN at the dif-
ferent postures to the ease with which the
Discussion evaluators could detect the nystagmus, rather than
Consistent with previously published results, we the influence of the postures themselves. As
confirm the validity of the HGN test in the stand- shown in Figure 5, fewer than 10% of subjects
ing posture to discriminate blood alcohol levels with BACs below 0.08% exhibited VGN at any
of 0.08% and 0.10%. We also establish, with sim- posture, whereas at least 30% of subjects with
ilar accuracies and reliabilities, the use of the BAC at and above 0.12% exhibited VGN.
HGN test in the seated and supine postures. The
average inter-evaluator reliability and accuracy
demonstrate that HGN is a highly reliable test. Conclusion
Officers in the field observe various indicators of
However, there were statistically significant dif- a driver’s impairment, including driving behav-
ferences in the observation of HGN based on test ior, physical signs, and performance on psy-
posture. We attribute these differences to the abil- chophysical tests. We conclude that the proper use
ity of the evaluator to detect the signs, rather than of the HGN and VGN tests at any test posture will
to incorrectly identify PAN as a sign of HGN. help an officer correctly identify individuals

708
OPTOMETRY VOLUME 74/NUMBER 11/NOVEMBER 2003
 ISSUE HIGHLIGHT

impaired with alcohol at BACs of 0.08% and 9. Smith JA, Hayes CE, Yolton RL, et al. Drug recognition
higher. By extension, since other CNS depressant expert evaluations made using limited data. Forensic Sci
Int 2002;130:167-73.
drugs, inhalants, and PCP affect the same neural 10. Burns M, Moskowitz H. Psychophysical tests for DWI
centers as alcohol, DRE officers can use the same arrest. DOT HS-802-424. National Technical Information
tests and test postures to aid in identification of Service, Springfield, Va., 1977.
impairment with substances other than, or in 11. Tharp V, Burns M, Moskowitz H. Development and field
addition to, alcohol. test of psychophysical tests for DWI arrest. DOT HS-805-
864. National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Va., 1981.
12. Bigelow GE, Bickel WE, Roache JD, et al. Identifying
Acknowledgments types of drug intoxication: laboratory evaluation of a sub-
We would like to thank the training coordinators in each state for allowing us ject-examination procedure. DOT HS-806-753. National
to conduct this study at their alcohol workshops and for encouraging officers to Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., 1985.
participate: Captain Charles Hayes, Oregon State Police; Sergeant Steve John- 13. McKnight AJ, Langston EA, McKnight AS, et al. Sobri-
son, Washington State Patrol; and Trooper Tim Riha, Idaho State Patrol. We also ety test for low blood alcohol concentrations. Accid Anal
wish to thank the training specialists and technicians who operated the breath Prev 2002;34:305-11.
analysis instruments and helped coordinate the workshops: Mr. Hal Merrill, 14. Robinson DA. Eye movement control in primates: the
Agency Trainer, and Ms. Kathy Irwin, Training Coordinator, Oregon Department oculomotor system contains specialized subsystems for
of Public Safety Standards and Training; Mr. William Bogen, Breath Alcohol Sec- acquiring and tracking visual targets. Science 1968;
tion, and Troopers B.I. Bowers and Debbie Laur, Washington State Patrol; and 161:1219-24.
Sergeant Dean Matlock, Idaho State Patrol. We very much appreciate the will- 15. Abel LA, Parker L, Daroff RB, et al. End-point nystag-
ingness of the subjects to take part in the many additional evaluations compared mus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1978;17:539-44.
to the standard alcohol workshop protocol. We are grateful to Detective Mike 16. Booker JL. End-position nystagmus as an indicator of
Herb, Forest Grove (Oregon) Police Department, and Messrs. James Bewley, Dusty ethanol intoxication. Sci Justice 2001;41:113-6.
Bodman, Levi Porter, and Michael Johnson for the demonstration photographs 17. Dell’Osso LF, Daroff RB. Nystagmus and saccadic intru-
of the test procedures. We are especially indebted to Dr. Jack Richman for his sions and oscillations. In: Duane’s Clinical Ophthalmology
insightful comments and suggestions in reviewing drafts of this manuscript. Lastly, 1997;2(11).
we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the officers who volunteered 18. Fregly AR, Bergstedt M, Graybiel A. Relationships
their time and expertise as evaluators. The opinions expressed in this report are between blood alcohol, positional alcohol nystagmus and
solely those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the officers postural equilibrium. Q J Stud Alcohol 1968;28:11-21.
named in the report or the individuals acknowledged, nor those of the agencies 19. Aschan G, Bergstedt M, Goldberg L, et al. Positional nys-
or institutions by whom they are employed. Also, they are not presented to rep- tagmus in man during and after alcohol intoxication.
resent any position or endorsement held or taken by the American Optometric Q J Stud Alcohol 1956;17:381-405.
Association. 20. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.
Drug Evaluation and Classification Training: The Drug
Recognition Expert School, 2002. Publication HS 172A
References R5/02.
1. Michie J. First-time study highlights need for increased 21. Anderson TE, Schweitz RM, Snyder MB. Field evaluation
awareness of substance use and driving behaviors. of a behavioral test battery for DWI. DOT HS-806-475.
http://www.health.org/pressrel/dec98/10.htm, Last accessed National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va.,
December 26, 1998. 1983.
2. Kennedy RS, Turnage JT, Rugotzke GG, et al. Indexing cog- 22. Stuster J, Burns M. Validation of the standardized field
nitive tests to alcohol dosage and comparison to stan- sobriety test battery at BACs below 0.10 percent. Santa
dardized field sobriety tests. J Stud Alcohol 1994;55:615-28. Barbara, Calif.: Anacapa Sciences, Inc., August 1998.
3. Resolution 6: Horizontal gaze nystagmus as a field sobri- 23. Averbuch–Heller L. Acquired nystagmus. Curr Treat
ety test. J AM OPTOM ASSOC 1993;64:653. Options Neurol 1999;1:68-73.
4. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. 24. Kansal S, Miller M. Bilateral Duane syndrome with bilat-
DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing eral congenital glaucoma. J AAPOS 2001;5:325-6.
Student Manual, 2002. Publication HS 178 R1/02. 25. Virtaniemi J, Laakso M, Nuutinen J, et al. Voluntary eye
5. Good GW, Augsburger AR. Use of horizontal gaze nys- movement tests in patients with insulin-dependent dia-
tagmus as a part of roadside sobriety testing. Am J Optom betes mellitus. Acta Otolaryngol 1993;113:123-7.
Physiol Opt 1986;63:467-71. 26. Severt WL, Maddess T, Ibbotson MR. Employing fol-
6. Halperin E, Yolton RL. Is the driver drunk? Oculomotor lowing eye movements to discriminate normal from glau-
sobriety testing. J AM OPTOM ASSOC 1986;57:654-57. coma subjects. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2000;28:172-4.
7. Kosnoski EM, Yolton RL, Citek K, et al. The drug eval- 27. Reulen JP, Sanders EA, Hogenhuis LA. Eye movement dis-
uation classification program: using ocular and other signs orders in multiple sclerosis and optic neuritis. Brain
to detect drug intoxication. J AM OPTOM ASSOC 1998; 1983;106(Pt 1):121-40.
69:211-27. 28. Baker SD, Borys DJ. A possible trend suggesting
8. Adler EV, Burns M. Drug recognition expert (DRE) val- increased abuse from Coricidin exposures reported to the
idation study. Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Texas Poison Network: comparing 1998 to 1999. Vet Hum
Safety, 1994. Toxicol 2002;44:169-71.

709
VOLUME 74/NUMBER 11/NOVEMBER 2003 OPTOMETRY
ISSUE HIGHLIGHT

29. McKnight AJ, Langston EA, Lange JE, et al. Development Corresponding author:
of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests for Lower BAC Lim-
its. Washington, D.C.: National Public Services Research Karl Citek, O.D., Ph.D.
Institute, 1995. Pacific University
30. Julien RM. A Primer of Drug Action. New York: WH Free- College of Optometry
man, 2001:56-8. 2043 College Way
31. Green DM, Swets JA. Signal Detection Theory and Psy- Forest Grove, Oregon 97116
chophysics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966.
32. Green DM. Psychoacoustics and detection theory. In: [email protected]
Swets JA, ed. Signal Detection and Recognition by Human
Observers: Contemporary Readings. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1964:70.
33. Bruning JL, Kintz BL. Computational Handbook of Sta-
tistics, 3rd ed. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, and Co.,
1987:226.

710
OPTOMETRY VOLUME 74/NUMBER 11/NOVEMBER 2003