Objective: A driving simulator was used to compare the effectiveness of increasing intensity (looming) auditory warning signals with other types of auditory warnings.
Background: Auditory warnings have been shown to speed driver reaction time in rear-end collision situations; however, it is not clear which type of signal is the most effective. Although verbal and symbolic (e.g., a car horn) warnings have faster response times than abstract warnings, they often lead to more response errors.
Method: Participants (N = 20) experienced four nonlooming auditory warnings (constant intensity, pulsed, ramped, and car horn), three looming auditory warnings (“veridical,” “early,” and “late”), and a no-warning condition. In 80% of the trials, warnings were activated when a critical response was required, and in 20% of the trials, the warnings were false alarms. For the early (late) looming warnings, the rate of change of intensity signaled a time to collision (TTC) that was shorter (longer) than the actual TTC.
Results: Veridical looming and car horn warnings had significantly faster brake reaction times (BRT) compared with the other nonlooming warnings (by 80 to 160 ms). However, the number of braking responses in false alarm conditions was significantly greater for the car horn. BRT increased significantly and systematically as the TTC signaled by the looming warning was changed from early to veridical to late.
Conclusion: Looming auditory warnings produce the best combination of response speed and accuracy.
Application: The results indicate that looming auditory warnings can be used to effectively warn a driver about an impending collision.
BhatiaP. (2003). Vehicle technologies to improve performance and safety (UCTC Publication No. 622). Berkeley: University of California.
2.
BlissJ. P.ActonS. A. (2003). Alarm mistrust in automobiles: How collision alarm reliability affects driving. Applied Ergonomics, 34, 499–509.
3.
EdworthyJ. (1994). The design and implementation of non-verbal auditory warnings. Applied Ergonomics, 25, 202–210.
4.
EdworthyJ.StantonN. (1995). A user-centered approach to the design and evaluation of auditory warning signals: 1. Methodology. Ergonomics, 38, 2262–2280.
5.
EngstromJ.VictorT. W. (2009). Real-time distraction countermeasures. In ReganM. A.LeeJ. D.YoungK. L. (Eds.), Driver distraction: Theory, effects and mitigation (pp. 465–484). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor Francis Group.
6.
GoldsteinE. B. (2006). Sensation and perception. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
7.
GrahamR. (1999). Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. Ergonomics, 42, 1233–1248.
8.
GrayR.SieffertR. (2005). Different strategies for using motion in depth information in catching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1004–1022.
9.
GuptaN.BisantzA. M.SinghT. (2002). The effects of adverse condition warning system characteristics on driver performance: An investigation of alarm signal type and threshold level. Behaviour and Information Technology, 21, 235–248.
10.
HirstS.GrahamR. (1997). The format and presentation of collision warnings. In NoyY. I. (Ed.), Ergonomics and safety of intelligent driver interfaces (pp. 203–219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
HoC.ReedN.SpenceC. (2007). Multisensory in-car warning signals for collision avoidance. Human Factors, 49, 1107–1114.
12.
HoC.SpenceC. (2005). Assessing the effectiveness of various auditory cues in capturing a driver’s visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 157–174.
13.
HoC.SpenceC. (2008). The multisensory driver. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
14.
HoyleF. (1957). The black cloud. Middlesex, UK: Penguin.
15.
KniplingR. R.MironerM.HendriksD. L.TijerinaL.EversonJ.AllenJ. C.WilsonC. (1993). Assessment of IVHS countermeasures for collision avoidance: Rear-end crashes (DOT HS 807 995). Washington. DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
16.
LeeD. N. (1976). A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision. Perception, 5, 437–459.
17.
LeeJ. D.McGeheeD. V.BrownT. L.ReyesM. L. (2002). Collision warning timing, driver distraction, and driver response to imminent rear-end collisions in a high-fidelity driving simulator. Human Factors, 44, 314–334.
18.
McGeheeD. V.LeBlancD. J.KieferR. J.SalingerJ. (2002). Human factors in forward collision warning systems: Operating characteristics and user interface requirements (No. J2400). Troy, MI: Society of Automotive Engineers.
19.
McKeownD.IsherwoodS. (2007). Mapping candidate within-vehicle auditory displays to their referents. Human Factors, 49, 417–428.
20.
MohebbiR.GrayR.TanH. Z. (2009). Driver reaction time to tactile and auditory rear-end collision warnings while talking on a cell phone. Human Factors, 51, 102–110.
21.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2009). 2008 traffic safety annual assessment (NHTSA Publication N. DOT HS 811 172). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
22.
NeuhoffJ. G. (2001) An adaptive bias in the perception of looming auditory motion. Ecological Psychology, 13, 87–110.
23.
PattersonR. D. (1989). Guidelines for the design of auditory warning sounds. Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics, 11, 17–24.
24.
RushtonS. K.WannJ. P. (1999). Weighted combination of size and disparity: A computational model for timing a ball catch. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 186–190.
25.
SchiffW.OldakR. (1990). Accuracy of judging time to arrival: Effects of modality, trajectory, and gender. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 16, 303–316.
26.
ScottJ. J.GrayR. (2008). Comparison of visual, auditory and tactile warnings for rear-end collision prevention in driving. Human Factors, 50, 264–275.
27.
ShawB. K.McGowanR. S.TurveyM. T. (1991). An acoustic variable specifying time to contact. Ecological Psychology, 3, 253–261.
28.
SorkinR. D. (1987). Design of auditory and tactile displays. In SalvendyG. (Ed.), Handbook of human factors (pp. 549–576). New York, NY: Wiley.
29.
StraughnS.GrayR.TanH. Z. (2009). To go or not to go: Stimulus-response compatibility and pedestrian collision warnings in driving. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 2, 111–117.
30.
YangJ. H.MaoZ. H.TijerinaL.PiluttiT.CoughlinJ. F.FeronE. (2009). Detection of driver fatigue caused by sleep deprivation. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans, 39, 694–705.
