This experiment provides a first-of-its-kind driving-simulator study to investigate the feasibility of camera-monitor systems (CMS) with displaced side-mounted cameras in sedans.
Background
Among the increasing number of studies investigating the replacement of side-mounted rearview mirrors with CMS, the placement of side-mounted cameras has been largely neglected. Moreover, user preferences with respect to camera placement have not been validated in a driving simulator. Past research merely has shown that the vertical camera position can affect distance perception.
Method
In a driving simulator experiment, we investigated the effects of rearward camera placement on driver acceptance and performance. Thirty-six participants performed multiple lane changes in a last safe-gap paradigm. The camera position, ego-velocity, and velocity of the approaching vehicle varied across the experiment.
Results
The results suggest a clear preference for a high rearward perspective, whereas participants disliked the lower viewpoint. However, these stark differences were only marginally mirrored in lane change performance. Average safety margins tended to decrease and their variation tended to increase for the low camera position.
Conclusion
Even if the impact of the camera position on driving behavior seems to be small in sedans, driver expectations show clear-cut preferences. When designing CMS, this should be taken into account, as these preferences could promote the use of CMS and thus their positive impact on safety.
Application
Designers should place side-mounted cameras as high as possible to increase acceptance of CMS. Low camera positions are not recommended, as they might decrease safety margins and are not appreciated by drivers.
AkaikeH. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716–723.doi:10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
2.
ÅkerstedtT.GillbergM. (1990). Subjective and objective sleepiness in the active individual. International Journal of Neuroscience, 52, 29–37.doi:10.3109/002074590089942412265922
3.
AliM. J. S.BazilahF. F. (2014). Mirrorless CAR: A feasibility study. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 663, 649–654.
4.
BaguleyT. (2012). Calculating and graphing within-subject confidence intervals for ANOVA. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 158–175.doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0123-721858605
5.
BaoJ.WuZ. C.WuJ. J.PeiP. P.LiuC. (2013). The impact of image parameters of indirect viewing systems on driver fatigue and task performance. Advanced Materials Research, 765-767, 2046–2050.doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.765-767.2046
6.
BarfieldW.HendrixC.BjornesethO. (1995). Spatial performance with perspective displays as a function of computer graphics eyepoint elevation and geometric field of view. Applied Ergonomics, 26, 307–314.doi:10.1016/0003-6870(95)00034-815677033
BeckD.JungJ.ParkW. (2021). Evaluating the effects of In-Vehicle Side-View display layout design on physical demands of driving. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 63, 348–363.doi:10.1177/001872081988478131721606
9.
BeckD.LeeM.ParkW. (2017). A comparative evaluation of in-vehicle side view displays layouts in critical lane changing situation. Ergonomics, 60, 1682–1691.doi:10.1080/00140139.2017.134395828617652
10.
BernhardC.HechtH. (2020). The ups and downs of camera-monitor systems: The effect of camera position on rearward distance perception. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 001872081989586.doi:10.1177/001872081989586632011915
11.
BouchardS.RobillardG.St-JacquesJ.DumoulinS.PatryM. J.RenaudP. (2004). Reliability and validity of a single-item measure of presence in VR. InProceedings second international conference on creating, connecting and collaborating through computing (pp.59–61). IEEE.
12.
CorujeiraJ. G. P.OakleyI. (2013). Stereoscopic egocentric distance perception: The impact of eye height and display devices. InHoyetL.SandersB. W.GeigelJ.StefanucciJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM symposium on applied perception (pp.23–30). ACM.
13.
CousineauD. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45.doi:10.20982/tqmp.01.1.p042
14.
DaumS. O.HechtH. (2009). Distance estimation in vista space. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 1127–1137.doi:10.3758/APP.71.5.112719525542
15.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319.doi:10.2307/249008
16.
DeLuciaP. R. (1991). Pictorial and motion-based information for depth perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 738–748.doi:10.1037//0096-1523.17.3.7381834787
17.
DeLuciaP. R.PreddyD.OberfeldD. (2016). Audiovisual integration of time-to-contact information for approaching objects. Multisensory Research, 29, 365–395.doi:10.1163/22134808-0000252029384608
18.
EndersC. (2013). Centering predictors and contextual effects. InScottM.SimonoffJ.MarxB. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of multilevel modeling (pp.89–108). SAGE Publications Ltd.
19.
EsserM. (2016). Standardization and vehicle regulation aspects of camera monitor systems. InTerzisA. (Ed.), Augmented vision and reality: Vol. 5. Handbook of camera monitoring systems. The automotive mirror-replacement technology based on ISO (pp.51–100). Springer International Publishing.
20.
FeldsteinI. T. (2019). Impending collision judgment from an egocentric perspective in real and virtual environments: A review. Perception, 48, 769–795.doi:10.1177/030100661986189231362575
21.
FisherJ. A.GalerI. A. (1984). The effects of decreasing the radius of curvature of convex external rear view mirrors upon drivers' judgements of vehicles approaching in the rearward visual field. Ergonomics, 27, 1209–1224.doi:10.1080/001401384089636036526002
22.
FitchG. M.LeeS. E.KlauerS. G.HankeyJ. M.SudweeksJ. D.DingusT. A. (2009). Analysis of Lane-Change crashes and Near-Crashes (DTNH22-00-C07007). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/811147.pdf.
23.
FlannaganM. J.MeffordM. L. (2005). Distance perception with a camera-based rear vision system in actual driving. InThe 3rd international driving Symposium on human factors in driver assessment, training and vehicle design. Symposium conducted at the meeting of University of Iowa.
24.
FlannaganM. J.SivakM. (2003). Framing effects on distance perception in rear-vision displays (2003-01-0298). SAE Technical Paper. https://doi.org/10.4271/2003-01-0298.
25.
FlannaganM. J.SivakM.MeffordM. L. (2002). Distance perception in camera-based rear vision systems (2002-01-0012). SAE Technical Paper.
26.
FrankeT.AttigC.WesselD. (2019). A personal resource for technology interaction: Development and validation of the affinity for technology interaction (ATI) scale. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35, 456–467.doi:10.1080/10447318.2018.1456150
27.
GardnerP. L.Mon-WilliamsM. (2001). Vertical gaze angle: Absolute height-in-scene information for the programming of prehension. Experimental Brain Research, 136, 379–385.doi:10.1007/s00221000059011243479
28.
GibsonJ. J. (1950). The perception of visual surfaces. The American Journal of Psychology, 63, 367–384.doi:10.2307/141800315432778
29.
HechtH.LandwehrK.BothB. (2015). Effects of distance and eye-height on time-to-contact estimates. Movement & Sport Sciences - Science & Motricité, 89, 17–27.
30.
HendrixC.BarfieldW. (1997). Spatial discrimination in three-dimensional displays as a function of computer graphics eyepoint elevation and stereoscopic viewing. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 39, 602–617.
31.
KeshavarzB.HechtH. (2011). Validating an efficient method to quantify motion sickness. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53, 415–426.doi:10.1177/001872081140373621901938
32.
KinosadaY.UsuiS. (2016). Predicting driver’s intention based on own vulnerability: A social interaction process between road users at an intersection in Japan. Japanese Psychological Research, 58, 206–217.doi:10.1111/jpr.12099
33.
LandwehrK.BaurèsR.OberfeldD.HechtH. (2013). Visual discrimination thresholds for time to arrival. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 1465–1472.doi:10.3758/s13414-013-0497-y23794210
34.
LandwehrK.HechtH.BothB. (2014). Allocentric time-to-contact and the devastating effect of perspective. Vision Research, 105, 53–60.doi:10.1016/j.visres.2014.08.02225255991
35.
LargeD. R.CrundallE.BurnettG.HarveyC.KonstantopoulosP. (2016). Driving without wings: The effect of different digital mirror locations on the visual behaviour, performance and opinions of drivers. Applied Ergonomics, 55, 138–148.doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2016.02.00326995044
36.
HeZ. J.WuB.OoiT. L.YarbroughG.WuJ. (2004). Judging egocentric distance on the ground: Occlusion and surface integration. Perception, 33, 789–806.doi:10.1068/p5256a15460507
37.
LeeD. N. (1976). A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision. Perception, 5, 437–459.doi:10.1068/p0504371005020
38.
LeyrerM.LinkenaugerS. A.BülthoffH. H.MohlerB. J. (2015). Eye height manipulations: A possible solution to reduce underestimation of egocentric distances in head-mounted displays. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, 12, 1–23.
39.
LiZ.PhillipsJ.DurginF. H. (2011). The underestimation of egocentric distance: Evidence from frontal matching tasks. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 2205–2217.doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0170-221735313
40.
LodingerN. R.DeLuciaP. R. (2019). Angle of camera view influences resumption lag in a Visual-Motor task. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 61, 793–804.doi:10.1177/0018720818794526
41.
LoyA.HofmannH. (2014). HLMdiag : A Suite of Diagnostics for Hierarchical Linear Models in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 56, 1–28.
42.
MessingR.DurginF. H. (2005). Distance perception and the visual horizon in head-mounted displays. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, 2, 234–250.doi:10.1145/1077399.1077403
43.
MoreyR. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61–64.doi:10.20982/tqmp.04.2.p061
44.
MurataA.DoiT.KarwowskiW. (2018). Enhanced performance for in-vehicle display placed around back mirror by means of tactile warning. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 58, 605–618.
45.
MurataA.KohnoY. (2018). Effectiveness of replacement of automotive side mirrors by in-vehicle LCD–Effect of location and size of LCD on safety and efficiency. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 66, 177–186.
46.
OoiT. L.WuB.HeZ. J. (2001). Distance determined by the angular declination below the horizon. Nature, 414, 197–200.doi:10.1038/3510256211700556
RandK. M.TarampiM. R.Creem-RegehrS. H.ThompsonW. B. (2011). The importance of a visual horizon for distance judgments under severely degraded vision. Perception, 40, 143–154.doi:10.1068/p684321650089
52.
ReinhardR. T.KleerM.DreßlerK. (2019). The impact of individual simulator experiences on usability and driving behavior in a moving base driving simulator. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 61, 131–140.
53.
Rudin-BrownC. (2004). Vehicle height affects drivers’ speed perception implications for rollover risk (Vol. 1899, pp.84–89). Transportation Research Record.
54.
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.doi:10.1037//0096-1523.16.2.3032142201
55.
SchmidtE. A.HoffmannH.KrautscheidR.BierbachM.FreyA.GailJ.Lotz-KeensC. (2016). Camera-monitor systems as a replacement for exterior mirrors in cars and trucks. InTerzisA. (Ed.), Augmented vision and reality: Vol. 5. Handbook of camera monitoring systems. The automotive mirror-replacement technology based on ISO 16505 (pp.369–436). Springer International Publishing.
56.
SedgwickH. A. (1986). Space perception. InBoffK. R.KaufmanL.ThomasJ. P. (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance: Vol 1. Sensory processes and perception (pp.21.1–2121). Wiley.
SinaiM. J.OoiT. L.HeZ. J. (1998). Terrain influences the accurate judgement of distance. Nature, 395, 497–500.doi:10.1038/267479774104
59.
StewartD.CudworthC. J.LishmanJ. R. (1993). Misperception of time-to-collision by drivers in pedestrian accidents. Perception, 22, 1227–1244.doi:10.1068/p2212278047410
60.
TerzisA. (2016). Automotive mirror-replacement by camera monitor systems. InTerzisA. (Ed.), Augmented Vision and Reality: Vol. 5. Handbook of camera monitoring systems. The automotive mirror-replacement technology based on ISO 16505 (pp.3–50). Springer International Publishing.
61.
ThomasJ. A.WaltonD. (2008). Vehicle size and driver perceptions of safety. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 2, 260–273.
62.
TresilianJ. R. (1991). Empirical and theoretical issues in the perception of time to contact. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 865–876.doi:10.1037//0096-1523.17.3.8651834797
63.
UstinovaK.PerkinsJ.SzostakowskiL.TamkeiL. S.LeonardW. A. (2010). Effect of viewing angle on arm reaching while standing in a virtual environment: Potential for virtual rehabilitation. Acta Psychologica, 133, 180–190.doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.11.00620021998
64.
van ErpJ. B. F.PadmosP. (2003). Image parameters for driving with indirect viewing systems. Ergonomics, 46, 1471–1499.doi:10.1080/001401303200012162414668170
65.
VianinP.BaumbergerB.FlückigerM. (2004). Distance estimation in a dynamic simulated environment: A visual field dependence problem?Perception, 33, 561–568.doi:10.1068/p523015250661
66.
ViputsakulS.LargeD. R.BurnettG. (2020). Enhancing Drivers’ Awareness of Passing Pedestrians with Exocentric Digital Mirrors..
67.
YanJ. -J.LorvB.LiH.SunH.-J. (2011). Visual processing of the impending collision of a looming object: Time to collision revisited. Journal of Vision, 11, 7.doi:10.1167/11.12.722003252
68.
ZhouL.OoiT. L.HeZ. J. (2016). Intrinsic spatial knowledge about terrestrial ecology favors the tall for judging distance. Science Advances, 2, e1501070–1501079.doi:10.1126/sciadv.150107027602402
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
