Using fuzzy signal detection theory to determine why experienced and trained drivers respond faster than novices in a hazard perception test

Wallis, Thomas S. A.; Horswill, Mark S.

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2007.03.003

Cited by 144 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While a video-based driving test cannot capture all the complexity of real driving, the general finding of slower hazard perception in the less experienced drivers, during both day and night, is also consistent with previous work and can be regarded as evidence for the validity of our hazard perception test (Horswill et al, 2008;McKenna & Crick, 1991;Wallis & Horswill, 2007). This novice/experienced driver difference is consistent with both differences in crash risk between younger and older drivers (Williams, 1993) and the relationship between hazard perception latency and crash risk (Quimby et al, 1986;McKenna & Horswill, 1999).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…In particular, one driving skill, hazard perception, has been associated both with novice/experienced differences (Horswill et al, 2008;McKenna & Crick, 1991;Milech, Glencross, & Hartley, 1989;Wallis & Horswill, 2007) and crash risk (Horswill & McKenna, 2004;Quimby, Maycock, Carter, Dixon, & Wall, 1986). Hazard perception requires scanning of the road environment, fixation on appropriate stimuli (Mayhew & Simpson, 1995), and a 'holistic' interpretation of the salience of hazards (Milech, Glencross, & Hartley, 1989).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hazard perception in novice and experienced drivers: The effects of sleepiness

Smith

Horswill

Chambers

et al. 2009

Accident Analysis & Prevention

Self Cite

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One driver skill that has been found to correlate with crash risk is hazard perception ability.The purpose of this study was to investigate how hazard perception latencies change between high and low sleepiness for a high risk group (novice drivers) and a lower risk group (experienced drivers). Thirty-two novice drivers (aged 17-24 years) and thirty experienced drivers (aged 28-36) completed a validated video-based hazard perception test, in which participants were asked to anticipate genuine traffic conflicts in footage filmed from the driver's perspective, with separate groups tested at either 10am (lower sleepiness) or at 3am (higher sleepiness). We found a significant interaction between sleepiness and experience, indicating that the hazard perception skills of the more experienced drivers were relatively unaffected by mild increases in sleepiness while the inexperienced drivers were significantly slowed. The findings suggest that the disproportionate sleepiness-related accident involvement of young, inexperienced drivers could be partly due to a slowing of their ability to anticipate traffic hazards.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hazard perception in novice and experienced drivers: The effects of sleepiness

Smith

Horswill

Chambers

et al. 2009

Accident Analysis & Prevention

Self Cite

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These fuzzy rates are then used to calculate sensitivity and response bias as in traditional Signal Detection Theory (Parasuraman et al, 2000). Wallis & Horswill's (2007) results did not identify any sensitivity differences between experienced drivers and novices in the Hazard Perception test (the Signal Detection analysis) or in the hazard-rating task (the Fuzzy Signal Detection analysis). Similarly, the trained and untrained drivers did not differ in sensitivity in either task.…”

Section: Sensation and Decision-making: Signal Detection Theorymentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Wallis & Horswill (2007) stated that there are a number of reasons why this approach is both conceptually inappropriate and practically difficult for HP-like tasks. They believe that in the Hazard Perception domain, there is no way to objectively measure whether a scene is "a hazard" or "not a hazard" as it lacks the objectively measurable assessment of a binary true state.…”

Section: Sensation and Decision-making: Signal Detection Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

What happens when drivers face hazards on the road?

Ventsislavova

Gugliotta

Peña-Suárez

et al. 2016

Accident Analysis & Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study aims to obtain knowledge about the nature of the processes involved in Hazard Perception, using measurement techniques to separate and independently quantify these suspected subprocesses: Sensation, Situation Awareness (recognition, location and projection) and Decision-Making. It applies Signal Detection Theory analysis to Hazard Perception and Prediction Tasks. To enable the calculation of Signal Detection Theory parameters, video-recorded hazardous vs. quasi-hazardous situations were presented to the participants. In the hazardous situations it is necessary to perform an evasive action, for instance, braking or swerving abruptly, while the quasi-hazardous situations do not require the driver to make any evasive manoeuvre, merely to carry on driving at the same speed and following the same trajectory. A first Multiple Choice Hazard Perception and Prediction test was created to measure participants' performance in a What Happens Next? Task. The sample comprised 143 participants, 47 females and 94 males. Groups of non-offender drivers (learner, novice and experienced) and offender drivers (novice and experienced) were recruited. The Multiple Choice Hazard Perception and Prediction test succeeded in finding differences between drivers according to their driving experience.In fact, differences exist with regard to the level of hazard discrimination (d' prime) by drivers with different experience (learner, novice and experienced drivers) and profile (offenders and non-offenders) and these differences emerge from Signal Detection Theory analysis. In addition, it was found that experienced drivers show higher Situation Awareness than learner or novice drivers. On the other hand, although offenders do worse than non-offenders on the hazard identification question, they do just as well when their Situation Awareness is probed (in fact, they are as aware as non-offenders of what the obstacles on the road are, where they are and what will happen next). Nevertheless, when considering the answers participants provided about their degree of cautiousness, experienced drivers were more cautious than novice drivers, and non-offender drivers were more cautious than offender drivers. That is, a greater number of experienced and non-offender drivers chose the answer "I would make an evasive manoeuvre such as braking gradually".2

show abstract

“…This is particularly relevant in developing countries with higher accident rates, where drivers are more likely to be desensitized to hazards. While it is certainly possible that an RT paradigm could be successfully calibrated, Wallis & Horswill (2007) found that manipulating test instructions had no effect on responses. This finding, combined with the results of the present study, suggests that a predictive task may be a practical alternative in countries where desensitization is likely to occur.…”

Section: "What Happens Next?": a Viable Hazard Perception Paradigm?mentioning

confidence: 99%

A predictive hazard perception paradigm differentiates driving experience cross-culturally

Lim

Sheppard

Crundall

2014

Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviou

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hazard perception (HP) tests are used in several developed countries as part of the driver licensing process, where they are believed to have improved road safety; however, relatively little HP research has been conducted in developing countries, which account for 80% of the world's road fatalities. Previous research suggests that drivers in these countries may be desensitized to hazardous road situations and thus have increased response latencies to hazards, creating validity issues with the typical HP reaction time paradigm. The present study compared Malaysian and UK drivers' HP skills when watching video clips filmed in both countries, using a predictive paradigm where hazard criterion could not affect performance. Clips filmed in the UK successfully differentiated experience in participants from both countries, however there was no such differentiation in the Malaysian set of videos. Malaysian drivers also predicted hazards less accurately overall, indicating that exposure to a greater number of hazards on Malaysian roads did not have a positive effect on participants' predictive hazard perception skill.Nonetheless the experiential discrimination noted in this predictive paradigm may provide a practical alternative for hazard perception testing in developing countries.

show abstract

Using fuzzy signal detection theory to determine why experienced and trained drivers respond faster than novices in a hazard perception test

Cited by 144 publications

References 19 publications

Hazard perception in novice and experienced drivers: The effects of sleepiness

Hazard perception in novice and experienced drivers: The effects of sleepiness

What happens when drivers face hazards on the road?

A predictive hazard perception paradigm differentiates driving experience cross-culturally

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About