The Visibility of Symbolic Highway Signs Can Be Increased among Drivers of All Ages

Abstract

Visibility and comprehension of standard text, standard symbolic, and improved symbolic highway signs were compared among young, middle-aged, and elderly observers. The average distance at which standard symbolic signs could be identified was about two times that of text signs for all three age groups. The visibility distances of the improved symbolic signs, which were designed using an optical blur (i.e., low-pass) approach in order to avoid higher spatial frequencies, exceeded those of both text and standard symbolic signs. Visibility distance was decreased significantly among older drivers on some signs but not others. There were no significant age differences in the comprehension of symbolic signs. Acuity, a good predictor of visibility distance of both text and standard symbolic signs, was only weakly related to the visibility distance of the improved symbolic signs. These findings demonstrate that low-pass symbolic signs have significant advantages in visibility over their text counterparts for all drivers.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bailey, I. L. , and Sheedy, J. E. (1988). Vision screening for driver licensure. In Transportation in an aging society (Special Report 218, Vol. 2, pp. 294–324). Washington, DC: National Research Council, Transportation Reearch Board.

Dewar, R. E. , Ells, J. G. , and Mundy, G. (1976). Reaction time as an index of traffic sign perception. Human Factors, 18, 381–392.

Evans, D. W. , and Ginsburg, A. P. (1985). Contrast sensitivity predicts age-related differences in highway-sign discriminability. Human Factors, 27, 637–642.

Federal Highway Administration . (1989). The Federal Highway Administration's action plan for older persons. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.

Fozard, J. L. (1990). Vision and hearing in aging. In J. E. Birren and K. W. Schaic (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (3rd ed., pp. 150–170). San Diego: Academic.

Halpern, D. F. (1984). Age differences in response time to verbal and symbolic traffic signs. Experimental Aging Research, 10, 201–204.

Huston, R. , and Janke, M. (1986). Senior driver facts (Tech. Report CAL-DMV-RSS-86-82). Sacramento, CA: Department of Motor Vehicles.

Jacobs, R. J. , Johnston, A. W. , and Cole, B. L. (1975). The visibility of alphabetic and symbolic traffic signs. Australian Road Research, 5, 68–86.

Keltner, J. L. , and Johnson, C. A. (1987). Visual function, driving safety, and the elderly. Ophthalmology, 94, 1180–1188.

10.

Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

11.

Kline, D. W. , Kline, T. J. B. , Fozard, J. L. , Kosnik, W. , Schieber, F. , and Sekuler, R. (1992). Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 47, 27–34.

12.

Kline, D. W. , and Schieber, F. (1985). Vision and aging. In J. E. Birren and K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (2nd ed., pp. 296–331). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

13.

Kline, T. J. B. , Ghali, L. M. , Kline, D. W. , and Brown, S. (1990). Visibility distance of highway signs among young, middle-aged, and elderly observers: Icons are better than text. Human Factors, 32, 609–619.

14.

Kosnik, W. , Sekuler, R. , and Kline, D. (1990). Self-reported problems of current and former older drivers. Human Factors, 32, 597–608.

15.

Mace, D. J. (1988). Sign legibility and conspicuity. In Transportation in an aging society (Special Report 218, Vol. 2, pp. 270–293). Washington, DC: National Research Council, Transportation Research Board.

16.

Mergler, N. L. , and Zandi, T. (1983). Adult age differences in speed and accuracy of matching verbal and pictorial signs. Educational Gerontology, 9, 73–85.

17.

Owsley, C. E. , and Sloane, M. E. (1987). Contrast sensitivity, acuity, and the perception of “real-world” targets. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 71, 791–796.

18.

Owsley, C. E. , and Sloane, M. E. (1990). Vision and aging. In F. Boller and J. Granan (Eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology (Vol. 4, pp. 229–249). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

19.

Shoptaugh, C. F. , and Whitaker, L. A. (1984). Verbal response times to directional traffic signs embedded in photographic street scenes. Human Factors, 26, 235–244.

20.

Sivak, M. , Olson, P. L. , and Pastalan, L. A. (1981). Effect of driver's age on nighttime legibility of traffic signs. Human Factors, 23, 59–64.

21.

Spirduso, W. W. , and MacRae, P. G. (1990). Motor performance and aging. In J. E. Birren and K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (3rd ed., pp. 183–200). San Diego: Academic.

22.

Transportation Research Board . (1988). Transportation in an aging society (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: National Research Council.

23.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration . (1988). Manual on uniform traffic control devices for streets and highways. Washington, DC: Author.

24.

Whitaker, L. A. , and Stacey, S. (1981). Response times to left and right directional signs. Human Factors, 23, 447–452.

25.

Vee, D. (1985). A survey of traffic safety needs and problems of drivers age 55 and over. In J. L. Malfelti (Ed.), Drivers 55 + :Needs and problems of older drivers: Survey results and recommendations (pp. 96–128). Falls Church, VA: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.