The aim of this study was to validate the importance of key acoustic criteria for use as in-vehicle forward collision warning (FCW) systems.
Background
Despite recent advances in vehicle safety, automobile crashes remain one of the leading causes of death. As automation allows for more control of noncritical functions by the vehicle, the potential for disengagement and distraction from the driving task also increases. It is, therefore, as important as ever that in-vehicle safety-critical interfaces are intuitive and unambiguous, promoting effective collision avoidance responses upon first exposure even under divided-attention conditions.
Method
The current study used a driving simulator to assess the effectiveness of two warnings, one that met all essential acoustic parameters, one that met only some essential parameters, and a no-warning control in the context of a lead vehicle–following task in conjunction with a cognitive distractor task and collision event.
Results
Participants receiving an FCW comprising five essential acoustic components had improved collision avoidance responses relative to a no-warning condition and an FCW missing essential elements on their first exposure. Responses to a consistently good warning (GMU Prime) improved with subsequent exposures, whereas continued exposure to the less optimal FCW (GMU Sub-Prime) resulted in poorer performance even relative to receiving no warning at all.
Conclusions
This study provides support for previous warning design studies and for the validity of five key acoustic parameters essential for the design of effective in-vehicle FCWs.
Application
Results from this study have implications for the design of auditory FCWs and in-vehicle display design.
AustM. L.EngströmJ.ViströmM. (2013). Effects of forward collision warning and repeated event exposure on emergency braking. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 18, 34–46. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2012.12.010
2.
BaldwinC. L. (2011). Verbal collision avoidance messages during simulated driving: Perceived urgency, alerting effectiveness and annoyance. Ergonomics, 54, 328–337. doi:10.1080/00140139.2011.558634
3.
BaldwinC. L.EisertJ. L.GarciaA.LewisB.PrattS. M.GonzalezC. (2012). Multimodal urgency coding: Auditory, visual, and tactile parmeters and their impact on perceived urgency. Work, 41, 3586–3591. doi:10.3233/WOR-2012-0669-3586
4.
BaldwinC. L.LewisB. A. (2014). Perceived urgency mapping across modalities within a driving context. Applied Ergonomics, 45, 1270–1277.
5.
BaldwinC. L.MayJ. F.ParasuramanR. (2014). Motor vehicle crashes due to task-induced fatigue in young and older drivers: Mitigation with auditory forward collision warnings. International Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 135, 2280–2286.
6.
BlissJ. P.ActonS. A. (2003). Alarm mistrust in automobiles: How collision alarm reliability affects driving. Applied Ergonomics, 34, 499–509.
7.
BlissJ. P.GilsonR. D.DeatonJ. E. (1995). Human probability matching behaviour in response to alarms of varying reliability. Ergonomics, 38, 2300–2312.
8.
BlockJ.BussD. M.BlockJ. H.GjerdeP. F. (1981). The cognitive style of breadth of categorization: Longitudinal consistency of personality correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 770–779.
9.
BonebrightT. L.MinerN. E.GoldsmithT. E.CaudellT. P. (2005). Data collection and analysis techniques for evaluating the perceptual qualities of auditory stimuli. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, 2, 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1145/1101530.1101550
10.
BrownT. L.LeeJ. D.McGeheeD. V. (2001). Human performance models and rear-end collision avoidance algorithms. Human Factors, 43, 462–482.
11.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Leading causes of death reports: National and regional 1999–2014. Atlanta, GA: Author.
12.
DehaisF.CausseM.VachonF.RégisN.MenantE.TremblayS. (2014). Failure to detect critical auditory alerts in the cockpit: Evidence for inattentional deafness. Human Factors, 56, 631–644. doi:10.1177/0018720813510735
13.
DingusT. A.JahnsS. K.HorowitzA. D.KniplingR. (1998). Human factors design issues for crash avoidance systems. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
EdworthyJ. (1998). Warnings and hazards: An integrative approach to warnings research. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 2, 3–18.
15.
EdworthyJ.HellierE. (2006). Alarms and human behaviour: Implications for medical alarms. BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia, 97, 12–17. doi:10.1093/bja/ael114
16.
GonzalezC.LewisB. A.RobertsD. M.PrattS. M.BaldwinC. L. (2012). Perceived urgency and annoyance of auditory alerts in a driving context. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 56th Annual Meeting (pp. 1684–1687). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
17.
GrahamR. (1999). Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: Evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. Ergonomics, 42, 1233–1248.
18.
GrayR. (2011). Looming auditory collision warnings for driving. Human Factors, 53, 63–74. doi:10.1177/0018720810397833
19.
HellierE.EdworthyJ. (1999). On using psychophysical techniques to achieve urgency mapping in auditory warnings. Applied Ergonomics, 30, 167–171.
20.
HellierE.EdworthyJ.DennisI. (1995). A comparison of different techniques for scaling perceived urgency. Ergonomics, 38, 659–670.
21.
HellierE. J.EdworthyJ.DennisI. (1993). Improving auditory warning design: Quantifying and predicting the effects of different warning parameters on perceived urgency. Human Factors, 35, 693–706.
22.
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.
23.
International Electrotechnical Commission. (2006). IEC 60601-1- 8: Medical electrical equipment—General requirements, tests and guidance for alarm systems in medical electrical equipment and medical electrical systems. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
24.
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.
25.
LernerN.SingerJ.KellmanD.TraubeE. (2015, June). In-vehicle noise alters the perceived meaning of auditory signals. Paper presented at the 8th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design, Salt Lake City, UT.
26.
LewisB. A.BaldwinC. L. (2012). Equating perceived urgency across auditory, visual, and tactile signals. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 56th Annual Meeting (pp. 1307–1311). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
27.
LewisB.EisertJ.BaldwinC. (2014). Effect of tactile location, pulse duration, and interpulse interval on perceived urgency. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2423, 10–14.
LewisB. A.EisertJ. L.RobertsD. M.BaldwinC. L. (2014). Designing unambiguous auditory crash warning systems. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting (pp. 2078–2082). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581437
30.
LewisB. A.PenarandaB. N.RobertsD. M.BaldwinC. L. (2013). Effectiveness of bimodal versus unimodal alerts for distracted drivers. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design (pp. 376–382). Iowa City: University of Iowa.
31.
MarshallD. C.LeeJ. D.AustriaP. A. (2007). Alerts for in-vehicle information systems: Annoyance, urgency, and appropriateness. Human Factors, 49, 145–157.
32.
MollenhauerM. A. (2004). Simulator adaptation syndrome literature review. DTIC document, Defense Technical Information Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.
33.
PattersonR. D. (1982). Guidelines for auditory warning systems. London, UK: Civil Aviation Authority.
34.
PattersonR. D. (1990). Auditory warning sounds in the work environment. In BroadbentD. E.ReasonJ. T.BaddeleyA. D. (Eds.), Human factors in hazardous situations (pp. 37–44). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.
35.
PrattS. M.LewisB. A.PeñarandaB. N.RobertsD. M.GonzalezC.BaldwinC. L. (2012). Perceived urgency scaling in tactile alerts. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 56th Annual Meeting (pp. 1303–1306). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
36.
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. doi:10.1518/00187200sx250674
37.
SpenceC.HoC. (2008). Multisensory warning signals for event perception and safe driving. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 9, 523–554. doi:10.1080/14639220701816765
38.
ViswanathanM.JohnsonM. D.SudmanS. (1999). Understanding consumer usage of product magnitudes through sorting tasks. Psychology & Marketing, 16, 643–657.
39.
WickensC. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 159–177.
40.
WieseE.LeeJ. D. (2001). Effects of multiple auditory alerts for in-vehicle information systems on driver attitudes and performance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting (pp. 1632–1636). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
