This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
To Go or Not to Go: Stimulus-Response Compatibility for Tactile and Auditory Pedestrian Collision Warnings
April-June 2009 (vol. 2 no. 2)
pp. 111-117
Stacie M. Straughn, Arizona State University, Mesa
Rob Gray, Arizona State University, Mesa
Hong Z. Tan, Purdue University, West Lafayette
This study examined the effect of the stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility of pedestrian collision warnings presented via different sensory modalities in a driving simulator. Despite the well-established fact that reaction times (RT) are faster under S-R compatible conditions, the majority of collision warning research has used S-R incompatible warnings (i.e., the warning comes from the direction of the obstacle to be avoided not the desired response direction). Thirty-two participants in a fixed-base driving simulator drove on a three-lane urban road in which pedestrians randomly walked from the sidewalk into the roadway. Collision warnings in two different modalities (tactile and auditory) were compared with a no warning condition. Participants were equally divided into one of four conditions representing all combinations of two levels of warning S-R compatibility (compatible and incompatible) and two levels of warning timing (early and late). For early warnings, incompatible warnings were most effective as shown by a significantly shorter steering RT and larger clearance distance. For late warnings, compatible warnings were most effective. For early warnings, RTs were significantly faster in the tactile condition. The relationship between collision warning effectiveness and S-R compatibility in driving is dependent on whether the driver has time to evaluate the situation before collision will occur. Our findings have important implications for the design of effective tactile and auditory collision warning systems. However, further research is needed to determine if these effects occur in more representative driving conditions (e.g., lower pedestrian incursion rate and unreliable warnings).

[1] World Bank, http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/transport/ roadssafety.htm, 2006.
[2] Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), “Traffic safety facts 2006: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System,” NHTSA Publication no. DOT-HS-810-818, US Dept. of Transportation, 2008.
[3] D.M. Gavrila, “Sensor-Based Pedestrian Protection,” IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 77-81, Nov./Dec. 2001.
[4] G.D. Nicolao, A. Ferrara, and L. Giacomini, “Onboard Sensor-Based Collision Risk Assessment to Improve Pedestrians' Safety,” IEEE Trans. Vehicular Technology, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 2405-2413, Sept. 2007.
[5] T. Gandhi and M.M. Trivedi, “Pedestrian Protection Systems: Issues, Survey, and Challenges,” IEEE Trans. Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 413-430, Sept. 2007.
[6] R. Kiefer, D. LeBlanc, M. Palmer, J. Salinger, R. Deering, and M. Shulman, “Development and Validation of Functional Definitions and Evaluation Procedures for Collision Warning/Avoidance Systems,” NHTSA Publication no. DOT HS 808 964, Nat'l Highway Transportation Safety Administration, 1999.
[7] J.L. Campbell, C.M. Richard, J.L. Brown, and M. McCallum, “Crash Warning System Interfaces: Human Factors Insights and Lessons Learned,” DOT HS 810 697, Nat'l Highway Transportation Safety Administration, 2007.
[8] J.D. Lee, D.V. McGehee, T.L Brown, and M.L. Reyes, “Collision Warning Timing, Driver Distraction, and Driver Response to Imminent Rear-End Collisions in a High-Fidelity Driving Simulator,” Human Factors, vol. 44, pp. 314-334, 2002.
[9] P. Bhatia, “Vehicle Technologies to Improve Performance and Safety,” UCTC Publication no. 622, Univ. of California, 2003.
[10] G. Abe and J. Richardson, “The Effect of Alarm Timing on Driver Behaviour: An Investigation of Differences in Driver Trust and Response to Alarms According to Alarm Timing,” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 7, pp. 307-322, 2004.
[11] S.M. Belz, G.S. Robinson, and J.G. Casali, “A New Class of Auditory Warning Signals for Complex Systems: Auditory Icons,” Human Factors, vol. 41, pp. 608-618, 1999.
[12] J.D. Lee, J.D. Hoffman, and E. Hayes, “Collision Warning Design to Mitigate Driver Distraction,” Proc. ACM SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, vol. 6, pp. 65-72, 2004.
[13] J.B.F. Van Erp, “Presenting Directions with a Vibrotactile Torso Display,” Ergonomics, vol. 48, pp. 302-313, 2005.
[14] C. Ho, H.Z. Tan, and C. Spence, “Using Spatial Vibrotactile Cues to Direct Visual Attention in Driving Scenes,” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 8, pp. 397-412, 2005.
[15] J.J. Scott and R. Gray, “Comparison of Visual, Auditory and Tactile Warnings for Rear-End Collision Prevention in Driving,” Human Factors, vol. 50, pp. 264-275, 2008.
[16] R. Mohebbi, R. Gray, and H.Z. Tan, “Driver Reaction Time to Tactile and Auditory Rear-End Collision Warnings While Talking on a Cell Phone,” Human Factors, vol. 51, pp. 102-110, 2009.
[17] K. Suzuki and H. Jansson, “An Analysis of Driver's Steering Behaviour During Auditory or Haptic Warnings for the Designing of Lane Departure Warning System,” JSAE Rev., vol. 24, pp. 65-70, 2003.
[18] Stimulus-Response Compatibility: An Integrated Perspective, R.W. Proctor and T.G. Reeve, eds. North-Holland, 1990.
[19] J.L. Campbell, B.L. Hooey, C. Camey, R.J. Hanowiski, B.F. Gore, B.H. Kantowitz, and E. Mitchell “Investigation of Alternative Displays for Side Collision Avoidance Systems,” technical report, US Dept. of Transportation, Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Dec. 1996.
[20] D.P. Jenkins, N.A. Stanton, G.H. Walker, and M.S. Young, “A New Approach to Designing Lateral Collision Warning Systems,” Int'l J. Vehicle Design, vol. 45, pp. 379-396, 2007.
[21] D.-Y. Wang, R.W. Proctor, and D.F. Pick, “Stimulus-Response Compatibilitiy Effects for Warning Signals and Steering Responses,” Proc. Second Int'l Driving Symp. Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, pp. 226-230, 2003.
[22] S. Hirst and R. Graham, “The Format and Presentation of Collision Warnings,” Ergonomics and Safety of Intelligent Driver Interfaces, Y.I.Noy, ed., pp. 203-219, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.
[23] D.V. McGehee, D.J. LeBlanc, R.J. Kiefer, and J. Salinger, “Human Factors in Forward Collision Warning Systems: Operating Characteristics and User Interface Requirements,” no. J2400, Soc. of Automotive Engineers, 2002.
[24] E.B. Goldstein, Sensation and Perception. Wadsworth Publishing, 2006.
[25] S.J. Bolanowski, G.A. Gescheider, R.T. Verrillo, and C.M. Checkosky, “Four Channels Mediate the Mechanical Aspects of Touch,” J. Acoustical Soc. of America, vol. 84, pp. 1680-1694, 1988.
[26] R. Gray and D. Regan, “Risky Driving Behavior: A Consequence of Motion Adaptation for Visually Guided Action,” J. Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, vol. 26, pp. 1721-1732, 2000.
[27] R. Gray and D. Regan, “Perceptual Processes Used by Drivers During Overtaking in a Driving Simulator,” Human Factors, vol. 47, pp. 394-417, 2005.
[28] E. Brenner and J.B.J. Smeets, “Fast Responses of the Human Hand to Changes in Target Position,” J. Motor Behavior, vol. 29, pp. 297-310, 1997.
[29] J. Navarro, F. Mars, and J.M. Hoc, “Lateral Control Assistance for Car Drivers: A Comparison of Motor Priming and Warning Systems,” Human Factors, vol. 49, pp. 950-960, 2007.
[30] L.D. Adams, “Review of the Literature an Obstacle Avoidance Maneuvers: Braking versus Steering,” Report no. UMTRI-94-19, Transportation Research Inst., Univ. of Michigan, 1994.

Index Terms:
Attention, warnings, tactile warnings, auditory warnings, stimulus-response compatibility.
Citation:
Stacie M. Straughn, Rob Gray, Hong Z. Tan, "To Go or Not to Go: Stimulus-Response Compatibility for Tactile and Auditory Pedestrian Collision Warnings," IEEE Transactions on Haptics, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 111-117, April-June 2009, doi:10.1109/TOH.2009.15
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.