驾驶经验和危险类型对驾驶员危险检测的影响

结合反应时和信号检测方法,考察不同危险类型下驾驶员危险检测的特点。35名新手和35名有经验驾驶员依次完成一个反应时测试和一个信号检测任务。结果发现：新手对明显和隐藏危险的反应时间比有经验驾驶员长。与隐藏危险相比,驾驶员对明显危险的敏感性高、判断标准低。驾驶员对两类危险的反应时间长是因为他们的判断标准严格。研究结果表明,驾驶员危险检测的特点随着危险类型不同而变化。     

驾驶经验和危险类型对年轻驾驶员危险知觉的影响

结合反应时和眼动测量方法,采用驾驶经验分组2（年轻新手驾驶员,年轻有经验驾驶员）× 危险类型2（明显危险,隐藏危险）的混合实验设计,探索年轻驾驶员危险知觉的经验优势是否随着危险类型的不同而变化。使用一个基于真实交通情境视频的驾驶员危险知觉任务,对27名年轻新手驾驶员和22名年轻有经验驾驶员进行测试,并使用Tobbi T120记录眼动数据。结果发现,总体上,年轻新手驾驶员对潜在道路危险的反应次数比年轻有经验驾驶员更少,反应时间也更慢。两组驾驶员反应时间的差异,随着危险类型的不同而来源于不同的加工阶段。具体来说：一方面,年轻新手驾驶员对明显危险的反应时间慢,是因为他们对该类危险的评估时间长。另一方面,年轻新手驾驶员对隐藏危险的反应时间慢,是因为他们对该类危险的识别时间长。两组驾驶员对危险的平均注视时间受测试中危险类型的影响但不受驾驶经验的影响。这些研究结果表明,在对年轻新手驾驶员进行危险知觉训练或测试时,应重视危险类型对他们危险知觉的影响。     

驾驶经验和危险类型对年轻驾驶员危险知觉的影响（英文）

结合反应时和眼动测量方法,采用驾驶经验分组2(年轻新手驾驶员,年轻有经验驾驶员)×危险类型2(明显危险,隐藏危险)的混合实验设计,探索年轻驾驶员危险知觉的经验优势是否随着危险类型的不同而变化。使用一个基于真实交通情境视频的驾驶员危险知觉任务,对27名年轻新手驾驶员和22名年轻有经验驾驶员进行测试,并使用Tobbi T120记录眼动数据。结果发现,总体上,年轻新手驾驶员对潜在道路危险的反应次数比年轻有经验驾驶员更少,反应时间也更慢。两组驾驶员反应时间的差异,随着危险类型的不同而来源于不同的加工阶段。具体来说:一方面,年轻新手驾驶员对明显危险的反应时间慢,是因为他们对该类危险的评估时间长。另一方面,年轻新手驾驶员对隐藏危险的反应时间慢,是因为他们对该类危险的识别时间长。两组驾驶员对危险的平均注视时间受测试中危险类型的影响但不受驾驶经验的影响。这些研究结果表明,在对年轻新手驾驶员进行危险知觉训练或测试时,应重视危险类型对他们危险知觉的影响。.     

危险类型对公交驾驶员危险知觉的影响

结合反应时方法和多维度驾驶风格量表,以140名公交驾驶员为研究对象,采用2（危险类型：隐藏危险、明显危险）×2（驾驶员分组：有无交通违规/事故记录）的混合实验设计考察危险类型对危险知觉的影响。结果发现：驾驶员对明显危险的反应时比隐藏危险短,无交通违规/事故记录驾驶员对明显和隐藏危险的反应时均比有交通违规/事故记录驾驶员短。控制驾驶风格后,危险类型主效应不再显著。结果表明,公交驾驶员危险知觉的特点随着危险类型不同而变化。     

自我评估的能力与驾驶经验对危险知觉的影响

结合反应时和眼动研究方法,采用驾驶经验2（新手,有经验）×自我评估的能力2（高,低）×危险类型2（明显,隐藏）的混合实验设计,探索驾驶员驾驶能力的自我评估和驾驶经验对危险知觉及视觉注意的影响。采用驾驶能力量表和基于动态交通视频的危险知觉任务对86名驾驶员测试,并使用Tobbi T120记录眼动数据。结果发现,新手和有经验驾驶员自我评估的能力与危险知觉反应时间之间相关不显著,这说明两组驾驶员对自己驾驶能力的认识和评估不准确。有经验驾驶员对两类危险的反应比新手快。新手自我评估的能力过高,他们对两类危险的反应比同龄驾驶员和有经验驾驶员慢。然而,有经验驾驶员自我评估的能力与危险知觉反应时间之间不存在显著差异。此外,与新手相比,有经验驾驶员对两类危险的首次注视较快,总注视时间更长。与同龄驾驶员相比,新手自我评估的能力过高,他们对危险的首次注视较慢,对危险的总注视时间更少。这些研究结果表明,新手自我评估的能力过高,可能会提高他们的风险接受阈限,由此降低了他们对危险的反应速度。未来驾驶训练应当采取措施减少新手对驾驶能力的自我评估偏见,改善他们的视觉搜索模式以降低事故风险。     

车辆追随条件下驾驶员知觉行人危险的经验优势

危险知觉是指驾驶员在交通情境中对明显危险和潜在危险的识别、预测和反应的认知加工过程,是驾驶员对当前交通情境形成的连续而富于变化的复合认知表征。以往研究表明,对于行人过马路这类明显危险,新手和经验驾驶员危险知觉表现都非常出色。但是当明显危险（行人）和潜在危险（前车制动）并存时,经验驾驶员对明显危险的知觉反应是否会突显出优势呢？本研究通过设置两种交通场景：行人单一危险条件和行人-前车双重危险条件,考察不同经验人群对行人危险的反应及眼动特点。在第一个研究中,使用Tobii T120型眼动仪,通过反应时和眼动结合的方法,考察不同危险场景中,不同驾驶经验对驾驶员知觉行人危险的行为反应数据（反应时和正确率）及眼动指标（平均注视时间和水平搜索广度）的影响。采用2（交通场景：行人场景、行人-前车场景）×3（组别：无驾照组、新手组、经验组）两因素混合实验设计,其中交通场景是组内变量,组别为组间变量。因变量为驾驶员对行人危险进行反应的行为数据（反应时和正确率）及眼动数据（平均注视时间和水平搜索广度）。实验要求被试观看交通场景视频,当发现危险时,立刻按键反应。实验结果表明：在有前车条件下,经验组被试的反应时快于新手组（p=.039）和无驾照组（p=.013）,F(2,30)=3.98,p=.029。无驾照组被试对行人的平均注视时间长于经验组（p=.043）和新手组（p=.024）,F(2,30)=3.39,p=.047,ηp2= .18。无驾照组被试对场景的水平搜索广度均小于经验组（p=.006）和新手组（p=.016）,F(2,30)=5.17,p=.012,ηp2= .26。在第二个研究中,对研究一的数据进行了深入分析,考察双重危险场景中驾驶经验对驾驶员知觉行人危险及信息加工效率的影响。采用2（兴趣区类型：行人、前车）×3（组别：无驾照组、新手组、经验组）两因素混合实验设计,其中兴趣区类型是组内变量,组别为组间变量。因变量为搜索行人和前车时的眼动数据（总注视时间、搜索次数和平均搜索时间）。研究结果表明：经验组驾驶员对前车的总注视时间显著短于新手组（p=.014）和无驾照组（p=.003）,F(2,30)=5.99,p=.006。经验组驾驶员对前车的平均搜索视时间显著短于新手组（p=.014）和无驾照组（p=.004）,F(2,30)=5.50,p=.009。在有前车条件下,控制了性别、年龄后,驾驶员对前车的平均搜索时间越长,对行人的危险反应时越长（β=.393,p＜0.05,R2=.308）。这些结果说明：无经验和新手驾驶员糟糕的搜索行为不仅仅是由于操作抢夺认知资源或者情绪紧张导致的。危险的信息加工效率更低,搜索模式不够灵活,也是导致新手驾驶员行人碰撞事故率更高的原因之一。驾驶员培训有助于提高驾驶员对明显危险的信息加工效率和搜索模式灵活性。积累更多的驾驶经验可以提升驾驶员对潜在危险的的视觉搜索和注意资源分配效率,从而加快危险反应时间。未来的驾驶员培训应加强对新手驾驶员搜索技能的培训,并持续提供更多的驾驶员继续教育机会。     

影响驾驶安全的驾驶员危险知觉研究述评

危险知觉是指驾驶员对交通情境中的潜在危险进行识别并做出反应的一种能力。目前,驾驶员危险知觉测量主要使用反应时、眼动或主观评定三种测量方法。在测量中,这三种方法各有优缺点,并出现相互结合的研究趋势。为了提高我国交通安全性,结合国外在提高驾驶员危险预期能力和改善视觉搜索模式两个方面的应用研究,未来国内研究可以在探索危险知觉的认知加工特点、影响因素及加快测量技术的商品化应用等方面加以深入。     

事故多发驾驶员与安全驾驶员反应时的比较研究

本文对18名事故多发卡车驾驶员和18名安全卡车驾驶员的视觉、听觉简单反应时、选择反应时以及决策时间进行了比较研究.结果表明事故多发组卡车驾驶员的视觉、听觉简单反应时比安全组卡车驾驶员长,但差异不显著;事故多发组卡车驾驶员的视觉、听觉选择反应时与决策时间都比安全组卡车驾驶员长,且差异显著.本研究结果为我国深入开展驾驶员的选拔、培训与驾驶适应性检测提供理论依据与技术支持.     

驾驶员视觉注意对危险识别的影响及作用机制

驾驶中, 有效的视觉注意模式是驾驶员搜索与识别潜在道路危险的先决条件。通过分析驾驶员视觉注意对危险识别的影响, 提出情境意识假设与心理负荷假设。情境意识假设认为, 情境意识的质量决定了驾驶员视觉注意模式的灵活性, 进而影响危险识别。心理负荷假设认为, 心理负荷水平提高, 驾驶员视觉注意趋于集中, 不利于危险识别。建议未来研究可以在比较不同驾驶员情境意识的认知兼容性, 应用汽车驾驶自动化技术降低心理负荷以及检测并区分情境意识与心理负荷的影响等方面加以深入。     

自由回忆中元记忆监控的作用及其影响因素

采用“类信号检测论方法”,通过两个实验,研究了在记忆信息提取过程中元记忆的预见性监测判断（Feeling-of-knowing）和元控制的作用及其影响因素。实验一探讨了识记材料的难易、识记遍数对元监测判断以及输出控制中的反应标准是否有影响;实验二探讨了严格和宽松的奖惩条件对输出控制中反应标准的影响。用计算机随机呈现识记用的词表材料,识记之后让被试进行FOK等级判断和自由回忆,再用“类信号检测论”方法统计实验数据,分析各种条件下回忆成绩、FOK判断等级,计算出相应的符合率和反应标准。实验一结果表明,不同材料难度和识记遍数下的回忆成绩和FOK判断等级差异显著,但输出控制中的反应标准值没受这些因素的影响;实验二结果是严格和宽松奖惩条件下的反应标准值差异显著,严格条件下的反应标准显著高于宽松条件下的反应标准,表明奖惩条件对信息提取中的反应标准有显著影响     

An online hazard perception training course reduces heavy braking,speeding, and over-revving rates during everyday driving

In essence, driver training involves learning the skills required to drive safely and avoid dangerous events. However, in traditional on-road driver instruction, drivers virtually never accrue experience of the most significant types of events that they are learning to avoid: crashes. One means of providing this experience safely is to present novice drivers with video clips of real crashes, as part of structured learning exercises. A six-week automated online hazard perception training course for drivers, incorporating evidence-based training methods and over a hundred crash clips, was previously found to improve novice drivers’ hazard perception skill, which is known to be an important attribute for avoiding crashes. However, since hazard perception was measured using computer-based methods, the possibility remained that the training effect might not transfer to actual driving. We report a randomized control trial in which novice drivers were recruited to assess everyday driving behaviour objectively, using g-force triggered dashcams and GPS trackers installed in their vehicles. On-road data were collected for a one-month baseline period, and for a further two months after half of the sample completed the hazard perception training course. Drivers who completed the course significantly reduced their rate of heavy-braking events, their speeding behaviour, and their rate of over-revving events. These findings support the proposal that a relatively inexpensive and highly scalable hazard perception training intervention can improve on-road driving behaviour, with the clear potential to impact real-world driver safety.     

Young drivers’ perception of hazards: Variation with experience and day versus night

Young novice drivers have a relatively high crash risk for several years following initial licensing, and while all drivers are at greater risk at night, the night-time increase is greater for inexperienced drivers. Poor hazard perception has been identified as an important contributor to inexperienced drivers’ risk, but research on day-night differences in hazard perception for drivers varying in experience is lacking. This exploratory study investigated the nature of hazards reported by young inexperienced drivers versus more experienced and slightly older drivers. Hazards were not pre-identified by researchers; participants were simply provided with a general definition of ‘hazard’. Analysis focused on how experience level affected qualitative differences in the kinds of hazards reported, with particular focus on day-night differences.The 53 participants ranged in driving experience from learners through to 5+years post licensing, and in age from 16 to 30 years. They viewed 14 day- and night-time video clips of a diverse range of driving situations, pausing the video whenever they identified a hazard and then explaining why they had paused it at that point. Their responses were recorded. Content analysis of responses showed that more experienced drivers reported visibility-related hazards significantly more often than inexperienced ones, and significantly more so at night. They also commented significantly more on hazards related to tight bends in the road and significantly less on hazards concerning compliance with rules. Comments tended to be fewer with higher vehicle speeds, particularly for the least experienced drivers.Results are discussed in terms of how experience-related differences in drivers’ cognitive schemata and mental models are likely to affect hazard perception and crash risk, particularly at night. Some implications for driver training and license testing are suggested.     

Eye movements and hazard perception in police pursuit and emergency response driving

How do police cope with the visual demands placed on them during pursuit driving? This study compared the hazard ratings, eye movements, and physiological responses of police drivers with novice and with age-matched control drivers while viewing video clips of driving taken from police vehicles. The clips included pursuits, emergency responses, and control drives. Although police drivers did not report more hazards than the other participants reported, they had an increased frequency of electrodermal responses while viewing dangerous clips and a greater visual sampling rate and spread of search. However, despite an overall police advantage in oculomotor and physiological measures, all drivers had a reduced spread of search in nighttime pursuits because of the focusing of overt attention.     

Scores on a new hazard prediction test are associated with both driver experience and crash involvement

Hazard perception skill has been found to be associated with drivers’ crash risk. This skill has typically been measured using computer-based response-time hazard perception tests, in which drivers indicate the earliest point that they detect a potential hazard in video clips of traffic filmed from a driver’s perspective. In recent years, researchers have suggested an alternative type of measure, known as a “hazard prediction test”, in which each test item is a traffic clip that stops (typically cutting to black) just before a hazardous incident unfolds. Drivers taking the test have to predict what happens next in the clip. Measures of this kind have been found to distinguish between high risk (novice) and lower risk (experienced) driver groups, and have been argued to offer several advantages over traditional response-time hazard perception tests. However, a key strength of the response-time hazard perception test is that assessments using this format have been found to predict crash involvement. The same has not yet been demonstrated for hazard prediction tests, raising questions about their validity. In the present research, we created a new hazard prediction test using Australian traffic scenes. In our version of the test, drivers’ scores were based on how many plausible predictions they were able to generate for each traffic clip. We established validity evidence for the test scores in two studies with separate samples, using two different versions of the test (long vs. short) with different response modes (verbal vs. written). As well as distinguishing between novice and experienced driver groups, test scores were also associated with self-reported crash involvement in both studies. We also found a significant correlation between hazard prediction test scores and scores in an established response-time hazard perception test. These findings support the proposal that scores on the hazard prediction test are a valid measure of hazard perception skill.     

The interactive effect of vehicle signals and sensation-seeking on driver hazard perception

Does sensation seeking—as a personality trait that is closely related to risky driving—affect a driver's hazard perception, and if so, under what circumstances? Using hazard locations and vehicle signals as cues, this study classifies traffic situations into four types: danger ahead with cues, danger ahead without cues, danger behind with cues, and danger behind without cues. Based on these classifications, we examine the characteristics of hazard perception, decision-making criteria, sensitivity, and visual attention patterns of drivers with different sensation-seeking tendencies. Fifty-two experienced drivers were recruited for experiments in Dalian, China. Using computer, participants were shown videos taken from the driver's perspective and were asked to respond to hazards by pressing keys on the left mouse button. Their eye movements were recorded, and a multi-dimensional driving-style scale was used to divide participants into higher and lower sensation-seeking groups. The results showed that the higher sensation-seeking drivers had a lower hazard detection rate, fewer fixation counts, and shorter glances when there were cues, and they responded more slowly when there was danger ahead. For dangers ahead with cues and dangers behind without cues, the more attention the higher sensation-seeking drivers paid to the danger, the slower their response and the lower their hazard detection rate. The results indicated that higher sensation-seeking drivers have poor hazard perception in situations when there are vehicle signals as prompting clues and dangers ahead. In particular, for a danger with clues, the visual agility of the higher sensation-seeking drivers was worse than that of the lower sensation-seeking drivers. The more attention they paid to the danger the worse their hazard perception. The results of this study can provide guidance to teach drivers hazard-perception skills.