Driver conflict response during supervised automation: Do hands on wheel matter?

Securing appropriate driver responses to conflicts is essential in automation that is not perfect (because the driver is needed as a fall-back for system limitations and failures). However, this is recognized as a major challenge in the human factors literature. Moreover, in-depth knowledge is lacking regarding mechanisms affecting the driver response process. The first aim of this study was to investigate how driver conflict response while using highly reliable (but not perfect) supervised automation differ for drivers that (a) crash or avoid a conflict object and (b) report high trust or low trust in automation to avoid the conflict object. The second aim was to understand the influence on the driver conflict response of two specific factors: a hands-on-wheel requirement (with vs. without), and the conflict object type (garbage bag vs. stationary vehicle). Seventy-six participants drove with highly reliable but supervised automation for 30 min on a test track. Thereafter they needed to avoid a static object that was revealed by a lead-vehicle cut-out. The driver conflict response was assessed through the response process: timepoints for driver surprise reaction, hands-on-wheel, driver steering, and driver braking. Crashers generally responded later in all actions of the response process compared to non-crashers. In fact, some crashers collided with the conflict object without even putting their hands on the wheel. Driver conflict response was independent of the hands-on-wheel requirement. High-trust drivers generally responded later than the low-trust drivers or not at all, and only high trust drivers crashed. The larger stationary vehicle triggered an earlier surprise reaction compared to the garbage bag, while hands-on-wheel and steering response were similar for the two conflict object types. To conclude, crashing is associated with a delay in all actions of the response process. In addition, driver conflict response does not change with a hands-on-wheel requirement but changes with trust-level and conflict object type. Simply holding the hands on the wheel is not sufficient to prevent collisions or elicit earlier responses. High trust in automation is associated with late response and crashing, whereas low trust is associated with appropriate driver response. A larger conflict object trigger earlier surprise reactions.     

Sexual activity while driving: A content analysis of media reports

Sexual activity while driving fits the definition of distracted driving because it involves the diversion of attention away from the driving task. However, this risky driving behaviour has received little attention compared to other distracted driving activities. To address the lack of research on sexual activity while driving, the internet was searched from April to June 2020 for media reports in which sexual activities occurred within the cabin of a moving vehicle, taking specific note of: gender, the presence of others, time of day, use of substances, the nature of the circumstances surrounding the incident, and whether crashes had occurred. A total of 106 unique and verified cases were identified from 2004 to 2020. The reports involved 76 male (71.7%) and 30 female drivers (28.3%), and there were 43 (40.5%) serious incidents that involved a crash and 23 fatalities (21.7%). In 17 (16.0%) incidents their vehicle hit another car, and a pedestrian or cyclist was hit in 3 (2.8%) incidents. The risk of a serious incident was higher during oral sex or intercourse than solitary activities (i.e. masturbation). A total of 63 (59.5%) mild incidents (without crashes or fatalities) were identified, in which reports included accounts by witnesses or police regarding sexual activity while driving. Given the potential seriousness of incidents, this topic deserves further research to better understand the prevalence and safety implications of sexual activity while driving.     

From sport to eco: A case study of driver inputs on electric vehicle efficiency

This study focuses on driver-induced changes to vehicle energy and emissions performance by altering drivetrain configurations. It defines and examines the motivations for the use of drive modes in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). Drive modes are defined as user-selectable drivetrain configurations that allow drivers to change vehicle performance aspects such as altering its propulsion status from electric to gas, changing the steering responsiveness, suspension stiffness, and regenerative braking strength. Despite the direct impact they have on the vehicle’s energy usage, greenhouse gas emissions, and local air emissions, the impact of drive modes are not traditionally measured as part of the vehicle’s performance and certification tests. The impact of drive mode choice can explain a portion of the discrepancy between PHEVs expected and on road performance as a recent study by the authors found that the use of certain modes can result in a 15–30% increase in total energy usage in a vehicle traveling at freeway speeds.This is the first study to examine the motivations for the use of these drive modes and provides an overview of PHEV drive modes, classifying them into two main mode categories (propulsion adjustment and driver experience) and eight different mode types based on their intended purpose. This is followed by a logistic regression of 11 indicators for mode usage taken from a survey of over 4,500 PHEV owning households, showing that gender and the number of long-distance trips were the most commonly associated with usage across mode types.     

The effects of an authentic coaching intervention on athlete outcomes: A pilot randomised controlled trial

ObjectivesAuthentic leadership has been found to be related to promising outcomes in sport. However, no intervention designed to increase coaches' authentic leadership exists. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate such an intervention.DesignThe study was a pilot randomised controlled trial. We used a mixed design with Group (Intervention, Control) as between- and Time (pre, post) as within-participants factors.MethodA total of 18 coaches (M_age = 37.89; 83% males) and their athletes (N = 153; M_age = 20.48; 50.3% females) were randomly allocated, via block randomisation, into either an intervention (coaches n = 9, athletes n = 90) or a control group (coaches n = 9, athletes n = 63). The coaches in the intervention group received a 2-h-long workshop and completed weekly coaching logs. Data were collected via questionnaires, which were administered to both the coaches and their athletes prior to the workshop and two months after the workshop.ResultsThe results revealed that the intervention group reported higher authentic leadership compared to the control group. A mixed-design analysis of variance indicated that athletes in the intervention group reported significantly higher enjoyment and prosocial behaviour from pre- to post-intervention compared to the control group.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that an authentic coaching intervention can be effective in improving coaches' authentic behaviours and promoting positive athlete outcomes.     

γ节律神经振荡：反映自闭症多感觉整合失调的一项重要生物指标

多感觉整合是对不同感官信息进行选择、联系、统一乃至解释的加工过程, 它需要神经系统不同功能区域的共同投入与相互协调, 以实现多种感觉信息的时间捆绑以及全局性的预测编码。而γ神经振荡因具有反映神经皮层兴奋/抑制的平衡状况, 实现多感官信息的时间同步, 以及通过跨频耦合实现全局性预测编码的特点, 在多感觉整合的加工过程中发挥着重要作用。相比正常个体, 自闭症患者神经系统中的GABA中间神经元存在结构与功能异常, 导致γ神经振荡紊乱, 由此破坏了正常的时间同步以及预测编码加工, 并最终引发多感觉整合失调。基于上述因果关联, 未来研究可结合无创可逆性干预技术, 以γ节律神经振荡为生物反馈指标, 形成科学系统化的临床干预治疗方案。     

创造力产生过程中的神经振荡机制

创造力究竟是怎么产生的, 目前尚未得出一致的结论。神经电生理技术因其高时间分辨率, 可以准确地揭示创造力产生进程中的神经振荡机制, 从而帮助人们更深刻地理解创造力的本质。近年来的研究发现, 单节律alpha神经振荡会随着创造力的增加而增强, 这反映了创造力产生过程中的内部信息加工需求增加、自上而下的抑制控制增强。同时, 多频段神经振荡交叉节律耦合体现了创造性产生过程中额叶、颞叶和顶叶等多脑区之间信息交流的动态变化。未来研究应该以整合理论框架为基础, 结合多层次多方法的研究工具, 引进更生态化的数理计算方法, 并利用计算神经科学建模来预测个体创造力发展趋势, 从而全面深刻地认识创造力的本质。     

中国人限制性饮食和食物渴求的认知神经机制

物质丰富的时代, 如何抵御美味食物线索带来的食物渴求, 并限制饮食从而保持健康成为人们关注的重要话题之一。近年来, 国内学者为了探讨节食成功的原因, 创建中国食物图片库, 考察限制性饮食的认知神经机制, 以及成功和失败限制性饮食者的脑机制差异; 开展了特质食物渴求及中国特色的辣食渴求的认知神经研究。对推进饮食行为研究的理论发展, 也为肥胖、饮食失调等健康干预工作提供重要支持。     

辩证行为疗法：理论背景、治疗效果及作用机制

辨证行为疗法（Dialectical Behavior Therapy, DBT）于20世纪90年代初由美国治疗师Linehan创立。作为第三代行为治疗之一,该疗法以行为主义理论、辩证哲学、生物社会理论及禅宗为哲学基础,通过增加患者的技能使用,提高其情绪调节能力,以达到治疗目的。临床研究已证明其在边缘人格障碍,自杀及自伤行为中具有良好的治疗效果,除此之外也广泛适用于其他心理障碍及群体。DBT的临床效果、改变机制及拓展应用都需进一步研究。     

正式反馈的发展与临床应用

摘要:正式反馈通过系统收集当事人的效果反馈来追踪其治疗进展,进而识别缺乏治疗进展的个案,并通过促进治疗策略的调整来阻止治疗失败。正式反馈是近20年来发展出的一种循证治疗手段,其目的为进一步提高当事人的咨询效果。正式反馈的发展大致经历了临床有效性检验和实用性发展两个阶段。正式反馈可用于促进个体、夫妻和团体咨询的效果,也可用于评估临床督导效果、确定督导个案和指导临床督导。未来研究可探讨咨询师对待正式反馈的态度,拓展正式反馈的使用价值,建立正式反馈系统的本土化常模。