The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of augmented reality (AR) cues in improving driving safety among elderly drivers who are at increased crash risk because of cognitive impairments.
Background:
Cognitively challenging driving environments pose a particular crash risk for elderly drivers. AR cuing is a promising technology to mitigate risk by directing driver attention to roadway hazards. We investigate whether AR cues improve or interfere with hazard perception in elderly drivers with age-related cognitive decline.
Method:
A total of 20 elderly (M = 73 years, SD = 5) licensed drivers with a range of cognitive abilities measured by a speed-of-processing (SOP) composite participated in a 1-hr drive in an interactive, fixed-base driving simulator. Each participant drove through six straight, 6-mile-long, rural roadway scenarios following a lead vehicle. AR cues directed attention to potential roadside hazards in three of the scenarios, and the other three were uncued (baseline) drives. Effects of AR cuing were evaluated with respect to (a) detection of hazardous target objects, (b) interference with detecting nonhazardous secondary objects, and (c) impairment in maintaining safe distance behind a lead vehicle.
Results:
AR cuing improved the detection of hazardous target objects of low visibility. AR cues did not interfere with detection of nonhazardous secondary objects and did not impair ability to maintain safe distance behind a lead vehicle. SOP capacity did not moderate those effects.
Conclusion:
AR cues show promise for improving elderly driver safety by increasing hazard detection likelihood without interfering with other driving tasks, such as maintaining safe headway.
AndersonS. W.AksanN.DawsonJ. D.UcE. Y.JohnsonA. M.RizzoM. (in press). Neuropsychological assessment of driving safety risk in older adults with and without neurologic disease. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology.
3.
AzumaR. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6, 355–385.
4.
AzumaR.BaillotY.BehringerR.FeinerS.JulierS.MacIntyreB. (2001). Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 21(6), 34–47.
5.
BallK.EdwardsJ. D.RossL. A. (2007). The impact of speed of processing training on cognitive and everyday functions. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 62(Special Issue 1), 19–31.
6.
BallK.OwsleyC. (1993). The useful field of view test: A new technique for evaluating age-related declines in visual function. Journal of the American Optometric Association, 64, 71–79.
7.
BallK.OwsleyC.SloaneM. E.RoenkerD. L.BruniJ. R. (1993). Visual attention problems as a predictor of vehicle crashes in older drivers. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 34, 3110–3123.
8.
BallK.OwsleyC.StalveyB.RoenkerD. L.SloaneM. E.GravesM. (1998). Driving avoidance and functional impairment in older drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 30, 313–322.
9.
BlissJ. (1997). Alarm reaction patterns by pilots as a function of reaction modality. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7, 1–14.
10.
BlissJ.ActonS. A. (2003). Alarm mistrust in automobiles: How collision alarm reliability affects driving. Applied Ergonomics, 34, 499–509.
11.
BrombergS.Oron-GiladT.RonenA.BorowskyA.ParmetY. (2012). The perception of pedestrians from the perspective of elderly experienced and experienced drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 44, 48–55.
12.
BrouwerW. H.WaterinkW.Van WolffelaarP. C.RothengatterJ. A. (1991). Divided attention in experienced young and older drivers: Lane tracking and visual analysis in a dynamic driving simulator. Human Factors, 33, 573–582.
13.
CerelliE. C. (1995). Crash data and rates for age-sex groups of drivers, 1994. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, Research and Development.
14.
ChandraratnaS. K.StamatiadisN. (2003). Problem driving maneuvers of elderly drivers. Transportation Research Record, 1843, 89–95.
15.
ChapanisA. (1994). Hazards associated with three signal words and four colors on warning signs. Ergonomics, 37, 265–275.
16.
DawsonJ. D.AndersonS. W.UcE. Y.DastrupE.RizzoM. (2009). Predictors of driving safety in early Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology, 72, 521–527.
17.
DawsonJ. D.UcE. Y.AndersonS. W.JohnsonA. M.RizzoM. (2010). Neuropsychological predictors of driving errors in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 58, 1090–1096.
18.
DingusT. A.HulseM. C.MollenhauerM. A.FleischmanR. N.McgeheeD. V.ManakkalN. (1997). Effects of age, system experience, and navigation technique on driving with an advanced traveler information system. Human Factors, 39, 177–199.
19.
EdwardsJ. D.VanceD. E.WadleyV. G.CissellG. M.RoenkerD. L.BallK. K. (2005). Reliability and validity of useful field of view test scores as administered by personal computer. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 27, 529–543.
20.
GelascaE. D.TomasicD.EbrahimiT. (2005, January). Which colors best catch your eyes: A subjective study of color saliency. Paper presented at the First International Workshop on Video Processing and Quality Metrics for Consumer Electronics, Scottsdale, AZ.
21.
Hakamies-BlomqvistL.WahlströmB. (1998). Why do older drivers give up driving?Accident Analysis & Prevention, 30, 305–312.
22.
HoC.ReedN.SpenceC. (2007). Multisensory in-car warning signals for collision avoidance. Human Factors, 49, 1107–1114.
23.
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.
24.
HorswillM. S.MarringtonS. A.McCulloughC. M.WoodJ.PachanaN. A.McWilliamJ.RaikosM. K. (2008). The hazard perception ability of older drivers. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 63, 212–218.
25.
KimS.DeyA. K. (2009). Simulated augmented reality windshield display as a cognitive mapping aid for elder driver navigation. In Proceedings of the 27th International SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 133–142). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
26.
KramerA. F.CassavaughN.HorreyW. J.BecicE.MayhughJ. L. (2007). Influence of age and proximity warning devices on collision avoidance in simulated driving. Human Factors, 49, 935–949.
27.
LambleD.LaaksoM.SummalaH. (1999). Detection thresholds in car following situations and peripheral vision: Implications for positioning of visually demanding in-car displays. Ergonomics, 42, 807–815.
28.
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.
29.
LeesM. N.CosmanJ. D.FrickeN.LeeJ. D.RizzoM. (2010). Translating cognitive neuroscience to the driver’s operational environment: A neuroergonomics approach. American Journal of Psychology, 123, 391–411.
30.
LeesN.LeeJ. D. (2007). The influence of distraction and driving context on driver response to imperfect collision warning systems. Ergonomics, 30, 1264–1286.
31.
MaltzM.ShinarD. (2004). Imperfect in-vehicle collision avoidance warning systems can aid drivers. Human Factors, 46, 357–366.
32.
MartinP.AudetT.CorriveauH.HamelM.D’AmoursM.SmeestersC. (2010). Comparison between younger and older drivers of the effect of obstacle direction on the minimum obstacle distance to brake and avoid a motor vehicle accident. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42, 1144–1150.
33.
MatthewsC. G.KloveK. (1964). Instruction manual for the Adult Neuropsychology Test Battery. Madison: University of Wisconsin Medical School.
34.
MayhewD. R.SimpsonH. M.FergusonS. A. (2006). Collisions involving senior drivers: High-risk conditions and locations. Traffic Injury Prevention, 7, 117–124.
35.
OwsleyC.BallK.McGwinG.Jr.SloaneM. E.RoenkerD. L.WhiteM. F.OverleyE. T. (1998). Visual processing impairment and risk of motor vehicle crash among older adults. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 1083–1088.
36.
PollatsekA.FisherD. L.PradhanA. (2006). Identifying and remedying failures of selective attention in younger drivers. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 255–259.
37.
PondsW.BrouwerW.van WolffelaarP. (1988). Age differences in divided attention in a simulated driving task. Journal of Gerontology, 6, 151–156.
38.
PradhanA. K.HammelK. R.DeRamusR.PollatsekA.NoyceD. A.FisherD. L. (2005). Using eye movements to evaluate effects of driver age on risk perception in a driving simulator. Human Factors, 47, 840–852.
39.
ReitanR. M. (1955). The relation of the trail making test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 19, 393–394.
40.
ReitanR. M. (1958). Validity of the trail making test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 8, 271–276.
41.
RuschM.SchallM.Jr.GavinP.LeeJ. D.VeceraS.RizzoM. (in press). Directing driver attention with augmented reality cues. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.
42.
SalthouseT. A. (1996). The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychological Review, 103, 403–428.
43.
SchallM.Jr.RuschM.LeeJ.VeceraS.RizzoM. (2010). Attraction without distraction: Effects of augmented reality cues on driver hazard perception. Journal of Vision, 10, 236.
44.
ScottJ. J.GrayR. (2008). A comparison of tactile, visual, and auditory warnings for rear-end collision prevention in simulated driving. Human Factors, 50, 264–275.
45.
SorkinR. D. (1988). Why are people turning off our alarms?Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 1107–1108.
46.
StalveyB. T.OwsleyC.SloaneM. E.BallK. K. (1999). The Life Space Questionnaire: A measure of the extent of mobility of older adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 18, 460–478.
47.
TonnisM.SandorC.LangeC.KlinkerG.BubbH. (2005). Experimental evaluation of an augmented reality visualization for directing a car driver’s attention. In Proceedings of Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR ’05) (pp. 56–59). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
48.
UcE. Y.RizzoM.AndersonS. W.ShiQ.DawsonJ. D. (2005). Driver landmark and traffic sign identification in early Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 76, 764–768.
49.
UcE. Y.RizzoM.JohnsonA. M.DastrupE.AndersonS. W.DawsonJ. D. (2009). Road safety in drivers with Parkinson disease. Neurology, 73, 2112–2119.
50.
WickensC. D.DixonS. R. (2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A 517 synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8, 201–212.
51.
YehM.WickensC. D. (2001). Display signaling in augmented reality: Effects of cue reliability and image realism on attention allocation and trust calibration. Human Factors, 43, 355–365.
