The Time Cost of Head-Up Displays for Older Drivers: Critical Event Onset,Task Location,and Display Type

Abstract

The principle advantage of a head-up display (HUD) is that a driver does not have to take their eyes off the road. However, the advantage afforded by a HUD may be lost when surprising or unexpected events occur in the traffic environment. This study sought to determine the time-costs for elderly drivers associated with responses to the appearance of a pedestrian (critical event) while engaged in a HUD task. Sixteen older drivers (65 to 81, Mean = 73) interacted with a number of tasks presented in a low-cost driving simulator. Critical event onset after engaging in a HUD task (+100, +250, +1000 ms), display location (head-up, head-down), tracking difficulty (easy, hard), and display type (visual search, verbal memory) were the within-subjects variables. Analyses of perception-response time (PRT) and missed events (error) indicate that braking to a critical event, while performing a display task, is affected by the interaction between the temporal and spatial limitations of visual attention. HUD design and safety issues are briefly considered.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ball

Owlsley

(1991). Identifying correlates of accident involvement in the older driver. Human Factors, 33(5), 583–596.

Caird

J. K.

Chugh

Hooey

(1997). The effect of head-up display onset and location on younger driver perception response times to unexpected events. In the Proceedings of the International Ergonomics Association Meeting, Tampere, Finland.

Evans

(1988). Older driver involvement in fatal and severe traffic crashes. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 43, 186–193.

Flanagan

M. J.

Harrison

A. K.

(1994). The effects of automobile head-up display location for younger and older drivers (Rep. No. UMTRI-94–22). Ann Arbour, MI: The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

Gish

K. W.

Staplin

(1995). Human factors aspects of using head-up displays in automobiles: A literature review (Interim Rep. DOT HS 808 320). Washington, D. C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Hooey

Caird

J. K.

(1996). The effects of automobile head-up displays on driver attention. Proceedings of the International Conference on Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 173–178), Valencia, Spain.

Kline

Scialfa

(1997). Sensory and perceptual functioning: Basic research and human factors implications. In Rogers

Fisk

, Handbook of human factors of the older adult (pp. 27–54). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Moray

(1990). Designing for transportation safety in light of perception, attention, and mental models. Ergonomics, 33(10/11), 1201–1213.

Olson

P. L.

(1996). Forensic aspects of driver perception and response. Tuscon, AZ: Lawyers and Judges Publishing.

10.

Olson

P. L.

Sivak

(1986). Perception-response time to unexpected roadway hazards. Human Factors, 28, 91–96.

11.

Rabbitt

(1993). Does it all go together when it goes? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A(3), 385–434.

12.

Sojourner

R. J.

Antin

J. F.

(1990). The effects of simulated Head-Up Display speedometer on perceptual task performance. Human Factors, 32(3), 329–339.

13.

Transportation Research Board. (1988). Transportation in an aging society: Improving mobility and safety for older persons (Vol. 1: Committee report and recommendations). Washington, D. C.: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.

14.

Weintraub

D. J.

Ensing

(1992). Human factors issues of Head-Up Display: The book of HUD (Rep. No. CSERIAC 92–2). Dayton, OH: Armstrong Aerospace Laboratories.

15.

Wickens

C. D.

Long

(1995). Object versus space-based models of visual attention: Implications for the design of head-up displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1(3), 179–193.