People are known to naturally segment meaningful units of activity into individual events. Though an influential body of work demonstrating the relationship between event perception and human performance in daily tasks does exist, less consideration has been given to ideas that event perception can shape driving performance. This paper offers an introduction to event perception for the transportation community with a study measuring drivers’ perceptions for events in simulated driving scenes. The results demonstrate consistency in drivers’ perceptions of events and that specific features of a driving scene can predict event boundaries. This study also provides some evidence for a relationship between event perception and driving skill as measured by driving frequency. Discussed are the study’s implications to predict and shape the cognitive performance of drivers, along with potential benefits for driver training programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdrianJ.PostalV.MoessingerM.RascleN.CharlesA. (2011). Personality traits and executive functions related to on-road driving performance among older drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(5), 1652-1659.
2.
BakerL. J.LevinD. T. (2015). Event perception as a control process for visual awareness. Visual Cognition, 23(7), 814-816.
BiardN.CojeanS.JametE. (2018). Effects of segmentation and pacing on procedural learning by video. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 411-417.
5.
BläsingB. E. (2015). Segmentation of dance movement: effects of expertise, visual familiarity, motor experience and music. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1500.
6.
ChristoffersenK.WoodsD. D.BlikeG. T. (2007). Discovering the events expert practitioners extract from dynamic data streams: the modified unit marking technique. Cognition, Technology & Work, 9(2), 81-98.
7.
FaberM.RadvanskyG. A.D’MelloS. K. (2018). Driven to distraction: A lack of change gives rise to mind wandering. Cognition, 173, 133-137.
8.
GedenM.StaicuA. M.FengJ. (2018). The impacts of perceptual load and driving duration on mind wandering in driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 57, 75-83.
9.
GopherD.WeilM.SiegelD. (1989). Practice under changing priorities: An approach to the training of complex skills. Acta Psychologica, 71(1-3), 147-177.
10.
HorswillM. S. (2016b). Hazard perception in driving. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(6), 425-430.
11.
HorswillM. S.HillA.WettonM. (2015). Can a video-based hazard perception test used for driver licensing predict crash involvement?Accident Analysis & Prevention, 82, 213-219.
12.
KurbyC. A.ZacksJ. M. (2011). Age differences in the perception of hierarchical structure in events. Memory & Cognition, 39(1), 75-91.
13.
KurbyC. A.ZacksJ. M. (2019). Age differences in the perception of goal structure in everyday activity. Psychology and aging, 34(2), 187.
14.
LittellR. C.MillikenG. A.StroupW. W.WolfingerR. D. (1996). SAS System for Mixed Models.
15.
MäntyläT.KarlssonM. J.MarklundM. (2009). Executive control functions in simulated driving. Applied Neuropsychology, 16(1), 11-18.
16.
MuraK.PetersenN.HuffM.GhoseT. (2013). IBES: a tool for creating instructions based on event segmentation. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 994.
17.
NezlekJ. B. (2012). Multilevel modeling for psychologists. In CooperH.CamicP. M.LongD. L.PanterA. T.RindskopfD.SheK. J. (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 3. Data analysis and research publication (pp. 219-241). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
18.
NobleK.GlowinskiD.MurphyH.JolaC.McAleerP.DarshaneN.… PollickF. E. (2014). Event segmentation and biological motion perception in watching dance. Art & Perception, 2(1-2), 59-74.
19.
RadvanskyG. A.ZacksJ. M. (2017). Event boundaries in memory and cognition. Current opinion in behavioral sciences, 17, 133-140.
20.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods (Vol. 1). Sage.
21.
ReimerJ. F.RadvanskyG. A.LorsbachT. C.ArmendarezJ. J. (2015). Event structure and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(5), 1374.
22.
RichmondL. L.GoldD. A.ZacksJ. M. (2017). Event perception: Translations and applications. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(2), 111-120.
23.
SallR. J.WuS.SpenceI.FengJ. (2017, September). Destination, seen unclearly: Relevance of head-up display information to driving is unrelated to its processing. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 1899-1903). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
24.
SebastianK.GhoseT.HuffM. (2018). Repeating virtual assembly training facilitates memory for coarse but not fine assembly steps. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(6), 787-798.
25.
SpeerN. K.ZacksJ. M.ReynoldsJ. R. (2007). Human brain activity time-locked to narrative event boundaries. Psychological Science, 18(5), 449-455.
26.
SwallowK. M.ZacksJ. M.AbramsR. A. (2009). Event boundaries in perception affect memory encoding and updating. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(2), 236-257.
27.
WalkerH. E.TrickL. M. (2018). Mind-wandering while driving: The impact of fatigue, task length, and sustained attention abilities. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 59, 81-97.
ZacksJ. M. (2004). Using movement and intentions to understand simple events. Cognitive Science, 28(6), 979-1008.
30.
ZacksJ. M.KurbyC. A.EisenbergM. L.HaroutunianN. (2011). Prediction error associated with the perceptual segmentation of naturalistic events. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(12), 4057-4066.
31.
ZacksJ. M.SpeerN. K.ReynoldsJ. R. (2009). Segmentation in reading and film comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(2), 307.
32.
ZacksJ. M.SpeerN. K.SwallowK. M.BraverT. S.ReynoldsJ. R. (2007). Event perception: a mind-brain perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 133(2), 273.
33.
ZacksJ. M.SwallowK. M.VettelJ. M.McAvoyM. P. (2006). Visual motion and the neural correlates of event perception. Brain Research, 1076(1), 150-162.
34.
ZacksJ. M.TverskyB. (2003). Structuring information interfaces for procedural learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9(2), 88.
35.
ZacksJ. M.TverskyB.IyerG. (2001). Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(1), 29.
