김현수, 이재식, 신현정, 이창환 (2007). 한국어 문법어휘의 빈도, 부산: 부산대학교 출판부.
도로교통공단 (2015). 2015년판 교통사고 요인분석. 서울: 도로교통공단 안전본부 교통사고종합분석센터.
이세원, 이재식 (2009). 운전중 전자기기 사용유형에 따른 추돌경고 형태의 차별적 효과. 한국정보통신학회논문지, 13, 1247- 1254.
이재식 (2003). 운전 시뮬레이션을 이용한 추돌상황 재현 및 차량내 추돌 경고 시스템의 효과에 관한 연구. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 16, 33-56.
전용욱, 안성용, 박봄, 김상규, 최정필 (2011). 눈의 정보수용 특성에 따른 차량의 시계평가에 관한 기초연구. 대한인간공학회 학술대회논문집, 207-211.
Bandyopadhyay, T., Jie, C. Z., Hsu, D., Ang Jr, M. H., Rus, D., & Frazzoli, E. (2013). Intention-aware pedestrian avoidance. In Experimental Robotics (pp. 963-977). Springer International Publishing.
Brookhuis, K. A., de Vries, G., & de Waard, D. (1991). The effects of mobile telephoning on driving performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 23(4), 309-316.
Brown, I., Simmonds, D., & Tickner, A. (1967). Measurement of control skills, vigilance, and performance on a subsidiary task during 12 hours of car driving. Ergonomics, 10, 665-673.
Campbell, J. L., Hooey, B. L., Camey, C., Hanowski, R. J., Gore, B. F., Kantowitz, B. H., & Mitchell, E. (1996). Investigation of alternative displays for side collision avoidance systems(Rep. DOT HS 808 579). Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board.
Dingus, T. A., Antin, J. F., Hulse, M. C., & Wierwille, W. (1988). Human factors issues associated with in-car navigation system usage. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society(pp.1448-1453). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
Dingus, T. A., Jahns, S. K., Horowitz, A. D., & Knipling, R. (1998). Human factors design issues for crash avoidance systems. Human Factors in Intelligent Transportation Systems, 55-93.
Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). SR compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199.
Jenkins, D. P., Stanton, N. A., Walker, G. H., & Young, M. S. (2007). A new approach to designing lateral collision warning systems. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 45, 379-396.
Karasev, V., Ayvaci, A., Heisele, B., & Soatto, S. (2016). Intent-aware long-term prediction of pedestrian motion. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)(May 2016).
Lamble, D., Kauranen, T., Laakso, M., & Summala, H. (1999). Cognitive load and detection thresholds in car following situations: Safety implications for using mobile (cellular) telephones while driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 31, 617-623.
Lee, J., McGehee, D. V., Dingus, T. A., & Wilson, T. (1997). Collision avoidance behavior of unalerted drivers using a front-to-rear-end collision warning display on the iowa driving simulator. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1573, 1-7.
Mourant, R. R., & Rockwell, T. H. (1972). Strategies of visual search by novice and experienced drivers. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 14, 325-335.
Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., Arning, K., & Proctor, R. W. (2009). Reversed effects of spatial compatibility in natural scenes. The American Journal of Psychology, 325-336.
Reed, M. P., & Green, P. A. (1999). Comparison of driving performance on-road and in a low-cost simulator using a concurrent telephone dialling task. Ergonomics, 42, 1015-1037.
Stins, J. F., & Michaels, C. F. (1997). Stimulus–target compatibility for reaching movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 756.
Straughn, S. M., Gray, R., & Tan, H. Z. (2009). To go or not to go: Stimulus-response compatibility for tactile and auditory pedestrian collision warnings. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 2, 111-117.
Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9(1), 23.
Wallace, B. (2003). Driver distraction. Municipal Engineering, 156(3), 185-190.
Wang, D. D., Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (2003). Stimulus-response compatibility effects for warning signals and steering responses. Proceedings of the 2nd International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design(pp. 226- 240). Park City, UT: Driving Assessment.
Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman, & D. R, Davies(Eds.), Varieties of Attention(pp. 63-102), New York: Academic Press.
Wickens, C. D., Lee, J. D., Lui, Y., & Gordon-Becker, S. (2004). An Introduction to Human Factors Engineering(2nd Ed.), New York: Prentice Hall.
- Abstract viewed - 92 times
- PDF downloaded - 92 times
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© Korean Journal for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2016
Busan National University
How to Cite
Differences in drivers’ pedestrian avoidance response based on Warning timing, stimulus-response compatibility and Drivers’ distraction of auditory pedestrian collision warning system
Vol 29 No 2 (2016): Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Submitted: May 17, 2019
Published: May 31, 2016
In this study, the effects of auditory pedestrian collision warning system’s stimulus-response compatibility (compatible vs. incompatible) and warning timing(TTC: 2sec. vs. 4sec.) and type of driver distraction (control condition vs. auditory distraction vs. visual distraction) on pedestrian avoidance response were examined. The dependent measures were time to initial steering wheel maneuvering, steering wheel rotation angle, clearance distance to the pedestrian, ratio of pedestrian-collision and ratio of lane departure. The experiment used driving simulator and the results was as follows. First, the effects of stimulus-response compatibility appeared to differ as warning timing and types of driver distraction were varied. To be specific, stimulus-response incompatible condition was more suitable for auditory pedestrian collision warning system than stimulus-response compatible condition. Second, compare to 4sec, 2sec TTC condition yielded larger steering wheel rotation angle and higher ratios both in pedestrian-collision and lane departure. Third, among the types of driver distraction, the visual distraction impaired drivers’ ability to avoid the pedestrian most seriously. In conclusion, stimulus-response incompatible warnings which provided 4sec TTC condition seemed to be more reliable and useful in providing pedestrian-collision warning to drivers.