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。     

影响驾驶安全的驾驶员注意模式研究述评

驾驶员的视觉注意模式对于汽车安全驾驶具有非常重要的意义。本文主要从驾驶员的路面视觉扫描模式和整体视觉场景的注意模式两个方面对国内外有关研究进行了概览。主要包括: (1)视觉扫描模式对驾驶安全的影响研究; (2)驾驶员视觉注意分配模型研究; (3)以及针对驾驶员视觉扫描模式的培训研究。并提出进一步研究有待于深入探讨影响驾驶员视觉注意模式的影响因素以及开展适合我国汽车驾驶特点的本土化研究。     

工作记忆表征引导视觉注意选择的眼动研究

工作记忆表征能否引导视觉注意选择？目前实验结果尚不一致。有研究者认为能否观察到注意引导效应取决于视觉搜索类型。研究采用工作记忆任务与视觉搜索任务相结合的双任务范式, 结合眼动追踪技术, 对不同视觉搜索类型下的注意引导效应进行验证。实验1结果发现, 不管视觉搜索任务的靶子是否变化, 在早期的眼动指标上都发现了显著的注意引导效应, 但注意引导效应在靶子固定的视觉搜索任务下表现得更强。实验2在平衡两种视觉搜索任务中的工作记忆负载后发现, 两种视觉搜索任务下都出现了显著的注意引导效应, 但没有发现实验1中所出现的任务间差异。实验结果否定了视觉搜索类型对注意引导效应的决定性影响, 同时也提示工作记忆负载可能在注意引导效应中起重要作用。     

远、近空间内注意加工的分离

临床证据发现空间忽视症病人对于近处和远处空间内的注意加工存在差异,表现为空间忽视只发生于近处空间或只发生于远处空间,提示近处空间与远处空间在脑内可能是分别表征的。对健康成人的研究也发现了与之类似的近处空间和远处空间注意的分离现象,即在近处空间表现出左偏的伪忽视现象,在远处空间表现出左偏减弱或者右偏的趋势。本文综述了远、近空间内注意加工分离的实验证据以及采用线段二分任务这一主要的研究范式相关的实验结果,并且着重指出了远、近空间的划分不是绝对的,而是动态可变的研究证据。最后,指出了将来的研究需要深入考察空间参照系统在远、近空间知觉中的作用,以及关注社会交互情境下的远、近空间距离认知的动态变化。     

背景音乐的节奏与歌词语言熟悉程度对驾驶行为和眼动的影响

摘要：采用3D模拟驾驶情景结合眼动技术探讨音乐节奏和歌词语言熟悉程度对驾驶行为和眼动规律的影响,研究结果表明：（1）驾驶经验对驾驶行为及眼动影响显著,新手与老手相比速度更慢、错误数更多;（2）音乐节奏对驾驶速度、眼跳和垂直搜索广度影响显著,快节奏与慢节奏相比,驾驶速度更快、平均眼跳距离更短、垂直搜索广度更短;（3）歌词语言熟悉程度对驾驶速度、错误数和平均注视时间影响显著,熟悉语言与陌生语言相比,驾驶速度更慢、错误数更多、平均注视时间新手更长,老手无影响。（4）节奏与语言共同影响驾驶过程中的水平搜索广度,陌生语言时快节奏的水平搜索广度高于慢节奏,熟悉语言时快节奏的水平搜索广度低于慢节奏。通过本实验,建议驾驶员在选择音乐时选择陌生语言歌词的音乐,音乐节奏则可视情况而定。     

视觉空间伪忽视与表征伪忽视神经机制的异同

伪忽视（pseudoneglect）是指个体存在的轻微偏左的不对称空间注意,而视觉空间伪忽视（visuo-spatial pseudoneglect）和表征伪忽视(representational pseudoneglect)是其两种主要表现形式。研究初期,研究者认为两种伪忽视基于相同的注意定向左偏机制,但近年来研究发现,它们仍存在神经机制的差异。本文主要从两种伪忽视神经机制的异同出发,梳理分析近期研究结果,以期增进对伪忽视的理解。未来研究可以从认知时间进程角度或设计更为完善的研究范式进一步探讨这两种伪忽视神经机制的异同。     

工作记忆对视觉搜索的引导作用

以25名大学生为被试,采用眼动记录法结合双任务范式探讨工作记忆对视觉搜索的引导作用。结果发现:在工作记忆与视觉搜索内容相匹配的条件下,工作记忆可以对视觉搜索起引导作用,对视觉搜索具有自上而下的影响。而在工作记忆与视觉搜索内容不匹配的条件下,由于受到工作记忆容量的限制,工作记忆内容会对视觉搜索产生干扰作用。研究结果验证了偏好竞争模型。     

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。     

工作记忆负荷、形状干扰对聋人与听力正常人注意捕获影响的眼动研究

通过记录和分析被试的行为和眼动指标,本研究试图探讨不同工作记忆负荷下,形状干扰对聋人与听力正常人不同视野位置上刺激信息捕获注意的异同。研究结果表明：（1）形状干扰刺激虽然没有影响被试视觉加工的认知绩效,但被试的眼动模式会由于工作记忆负荷的改变而改变,高工作记忆负荷时,有形状干扰的注视次数高于无形状干扰。（2）工作记忆负荷、视野位置影响被试视觉加工任务的完成,被试在不同视野位置的加工过程表现出不一致的眼动模式。（3）聋人视觉加工在高工作记忆负荷时存在一定的劣势,但其对不同视野位置的信息加工及形状干扰所产生的注意捕获效应与听力正常人一致。     

Asymmetrical perceptual load in lateralised word processing

We applied the Load Theory of attention (Lavie, 1995, 2005) to the case of distraction during processing of lateralised words presented in either the right or the left visual fields. Previous research (Brand-D'Abrescia & Lavie, 2007) showed that lexicality affects selective attention such that the number of letters in a search task only increases perceptual load and reduces irrelevant distractor effects for searches in nonwords but not in words. The present study examined the hypothesis that the effect of lexicality on distractor processing would be stronger for words presented to the left compared to the right hemisphere. The results supported this hypothesis and their implications for attention to words in the two cerebral hemispheres are discussed. We suggest that the efficiency of attentional selection differed because perceptual load in the visual fields taxed processing depending on hemispheric language expertise.     

GUIDED VISUAL SEARCH IS A LEFT-HEMISPHERE PROCESS IN SPLIT-BRAIN PATIENTS

Abstract— Previous research has shown that split-brain (callosotomy) patients search through visual displays twice as fast as normal observers when items are divided evenly between visual hemifields, as though each disconnected hemisphere possessed its own attentional scanning system (Luck, Hillyard, Mangun, & Gazzaniga, 1989, 1994) Results from 3 split-brain patients in the present study indicate that the ability to limit search to a relevant subset of the visual display is lateralized to the left cerebral hemisphere. This ability to perform guided search was not shown in the right hemisphere, even when the search time in that hemisphere was superior to search time in the left Furthermore, guided search was observed for both hemifields in normal control observers. These findings suggest that, as with higher cognitive processes such as language, strategic visuospatial attentional processes are preferentially lateralized to the left cerebral hemisphere. The findings also imply that the callosum mediates guided search in the right hemisphere of normal subjects     

The effect of leftward bias on visual attention for driving tasks

The leftward bias of driving visual attention has been found to explain the role of driving experience in the visual attention strategy; even though the results reported in the literature are not always consistent. This study aims to explore the driving attention characteristics and the eye movement patterns by using a simulated driving experiment in conjunction with an eye-tracker device. 31 young inexperienced drivers (undergraduate students, average age 21) and 30 old experienced drivers (taxi drivers, average age 36) took part in the experiment. Results show that the eye movement patterns of the drivers have certain similarity in the occurrence of subtle asymmetries of visual attention favouring left space (the direction of the driving in the experiment was right-side) and that they are related to the right hemisphere specialization for spatial attention. However, in the more experienced drivers the leftward eye movement tends to shift toward the centre or even rightward to pay attention to the hazard events on road. These results suggest that inexperienced drivers are initially aroused by natural biological leftward visual attention and likely to develop central and rightward eye movement strategy for safety diving purpose. The implications of this study suggest that, despite the existence of natural visual attention bias, the left asymmetries in visual scan in inexperienced drivers still can be modified by driving trainings that focus on the hazard situation on road.     

Automatic attention lateral asymmetry in visual discrimination tasks

There is evidence that automatic visual attention favors the right side. This study investigated whether this lateral asymmetry interacts with the right hemisphere dominance for visual location processing and left hemisphere dominance for visual shape processing. Volunteers were tested in a location discrimination task and a shape discrimination task. The target stimuli (S2) could occur in the left or right hemifield. They were preceded by an ipsilateral, contralateral or bilateral prime stimulus (S1). The attentional effect produced by the right S1 was larger than that produced by the left S1. This lateral asymmetry was similar between the two tasks suggesting that the hemispheric asymmetries of visual mechanisms do not contribute to it. The finding that it was basically due to a longer reaction time to the left S2 than to the right S2 for the contralateral S1 condition suggests that the inhibitory component of attention is laterally asymmetric.     

Long-term inhibition of return of attention

During search of the environment, the inhibition of the return (IOR) of attention to already-examined information ensures that the target will ultimately be detected. Until now, inhibition was assumed to support search of information during one processing episode. However, in some situations search may have to be completed long after it was begun. We therefore propose that inhibition can be associated with an episode encoded into memory such that later retrieval reinstates inhibitory processing and encourages examination of new information. In two experiments in which attention was drawn to face stimuli with an exogenous cue, we demonstrated for the first time the existence of long-term IOR. Interestingly, this was the case only for faces in the left visual field, perhaps because more efficient processing of faces in the right hemisphere than the left hemisphere results in richer, more retrievable memory representations.     

The effects of focal and global attentional systems on spatial biases

The background page on which a stimulus is presented can influence the allocation of attention to that stimulus. The purpose of this study was to learn if there are hemispheric asymmetries in how background distraction affects attentional processing. Asymmetries were investigated by having right eye dominant subjects perform line bisections and manipulating the side of background distraction (right versus left), the eye of regard (right versus left), and the type of attention allocated (focal versus global). Overall subjects bisected lines to the left of center (pseudoneglect) and when viewing with the right eye (versus left) deviated more to the left. Subjects had more background distraction when viewing symbol than solid lines. Although overall, bias did not differ with the side of background distraction or the line being on one side or the other, when subjects viewed symbol, but not solid lines, this leftward bias was increased when the line was displaced to the right, thereby increasing the size of the left sided background. These findings suggest that when engaging the left hemisphere by using focused attention and placing the line on the right side, there is more distraction than when the right hemisphere is engaged.     

The influence of emotional faces on the spatial allocation of attention

Background objectives: Studies suggest that the right hemisphere is dominant for emotional facial recognition. In addition, whereas some studies suggest the right hemisphere mediates the processing of all emotions (dominance hypothesis), other studies suggest that the left hemisphere mediates positive emotions the right mediates negative emotions (valence hypothesis). Since each hemisphere primarily attends to contralateral space, the goals of this study was to learn if emotional faces would induce a leftward deviation of attention and if the valence of facial emotional stimuli can influence the normal viewer’s spatial direction of attention. Methods: Seventeen normal right handed participants were asked to bisect horizontal lines that had all combinations of sad, happy or neutral faces at ends of these lines. During this task the subjects were never requested to look at these faces and there were no task demands that depended on viewing these faces. Results: Presentation of emotional faces induced a greater leftward deviation compared to neutral faces, independent of where (spatial position) these faces were presented. However, faces portraying negative emotions tended to induce a greater leftward bias than positive emotions. Conclusions: Independent of location, the presence of emotional faces influenced the spatial allocation of attention, such that normal subjects shift the direction of their attention toward left hemispace and this attentional shift appears to be greater for negative (sad) than positive faces (happy).     

Hemispheric performance in object-based attention

The goal of the present study was to investigate whether object-based attention effects differ across the cerebral hemispheres. Previous research has suggested that object-based attention is preferentially lateralized to the left hemisphere (Egly, Driver, & Rafal, 1994; Egly, Rafal, Driver, & Starrveveld, 1994). However, work by Vecera (1994) has suggested that these previous studies may have failed to obtain a pure measure of object-based attention. The present study applied modified versions of Duncan's (1984) seminal object-based attention paradigm. Subjects were typically presented with one target object to a single visual field (one-object display), two target objects to the same visual field (two-object unilateral display), or two target objects to different visual fields (two-object bilateral display). In all three experiments, response accuracy was higher for the one-object displays than for the two-object displays. Most important, this object-based cost was especially severe when selection of two target elements was isolated to the right visual field (left hemisphere). We confirmed that this effect was specific to object-based attention in three different ways: Experiment 1 manipulated stimulus distance, as recommended by Vecera; Experiment 2 ensured that target selection was based on nonspatial attributes; and Experiment 3 used overlapping displays, as in Duncan (1984). Collectively, the data are in accord with previous conclusions that object-based attention is a specialized form of orienting subserved by lateralized cortical brain mechanisms. However, contrary to previous research, it appears that it is the right hemisphere, and not the left hemisphere, that is preferentially biased for committing object-based attention to elements in the visual environment.