Proactive Listening to a Training Commentary improves hazard prediction

Abstract

The aim of this work was to explore the effect of Proactive Listening to a Training Commentary, using the recently developed version of the Spanish Hazard Perception test. Firstly, 16 videos were used in the pre-test session in its short version, cut to black just before the hazard appearance. The What Happens Next Assessment (at the pre-test stage) generates expectations about the outcome of the traffic situation. Then, the training (8 minutes in length) uses the complete version of the same 16 videos, revealing the hazards unfolding. It involves listening to a voice with relevant information about where to allocate attention in the complex driving scene in order to recognise and anticipate the hazard successfully. A total of 121 participants were included in this study The sample consisted of learner, novice and experienced drivers, including re-offender and non-offender drivers. The participants were divided into 2 groups: a trained and an untrained group. Two assessment times were used: pre-test (16 videos) and post-test sessions (another 16 videos). The test presented a high internal consistency (Alpha = 0.875). This training shows significant positive effects for all types and groups of participants. No significant differences were found between the non-offender and the offender groups. Performance in gradual-onset hazard events can be improved after training but also by practice; however this training is essential and especially beneficial for training the ability to detect hazards that appear abruptly (which seems to be difficult to improve just by practice).

Untitled

“…Additionally, research has shown hazard perception training to be effective in improving the hazard perception skills of drivers (e.g. Castro et al, 2016;Horswill, 2016;Horswill, Garth, Hill, & Watson, 2017;Vlakveld, 2014;Wetton, Hill, & Horswill, 2013). Therefore the fact that the study indicates that this training is also effective for minority groups such as those with ADHD is an important finding.…”

The hazard prediction test: A comparison of free-response and multiple-choice formats

“…A number of studies have demonstrated the ability of the hazard prediction test to successfully discriminate between safer, experienced drivers, and less-safe, inexperienced drivers (Jackson et al, 2009;Crundall 2016;Castro et al, 2014, Ventsislavova et al, 2016, Gugliotta et al, 2017Lim et al, 2014). Several of these studies have also developed this occlusion-based methodology through a number of targeted experiments focusing on design elements.…”

“…These initial studies suggest that the hazard prediction test can provide a robust and simpler alternative to the more traditional hazard perception test. However, one of the problems with the version of the test used by many researchers (Castro et al, 2014(Castro et al, , 2016Crundall 2016;Jackson et al, 2009) is that participants give free-response answers which must be hand coded. This introduces the potential for rater error, and renders the test impractical for use on a wide scale.…”

Commentary driver training: Effects of commentary exposure, practice and production on hazard perception and eye movements

“…Video-based commentary driver training is economical and easily accessible to drivers looking to improve their hazard perception skills; making it a desirable training method, providing it is effective. Indeed, apparent benefits have been observed in some studies with exposure to commentary videos of only eight minutes in length (Castro et al, 2016).…”

“…Benefits have been observed when drivers are trained via exposure to commentary, without ever producing a commentary of their own (Castro et al, 2016, McKenna et al, 2006Wetton et al, 2013). However, improvements in hazard perception have also been observed when trainees produced their own commentary, without ever being specifically trained in how to produce a commentary (Isler et al, 2009).…”