This proof-of-concept study evaluated appropriate modalities and respective stimuli for a curvewarning application. Objective and subjective measurements were collected in a simulator environment to compare conditions comprised of multiple stimuli from auditory (icon, tone, or speech), visual (Heads Down Display [HDD] or Heads Up Display [HUD]), and haptic (throttle push-back) modalities. The speech stimulus was shown to be the most appropriate auditory stimulus both objectively and subjectively. The HDD and HUD were found to be comparable in terms of objective performance, although the HDD ranked higher for subjective measurements. The throttle push-back had little positive impact on performance, which combined with subjective findings, makes it less suitable for a curve-warning application. The Speech and HDD condition was the most effective combination of two and three modalities examined.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (2001). A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Fourth ed.). Washington, D. C.: AASHTO.
2.
CampbellJ. L.CarneyC.KantowitzB. H. (1998). Human Factors Design Guidelines for Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) and Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO) (FHWA-RD-98–057). McLean, VA: Office of Safety and Traffic Operations R&D, Federal Highway Administration.
3.
DroryA.ShinarD. (1982). The Effects of Roadway Environment and Fatigue on Sign Perception. Journal of Safety Research, 13, 25–32.
4.
Federal Highway Administration (2001). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices: Millennium Edition. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Transportation, FHA.
5.
GrahamR.HirstS. J.CarterC. (1995). Auditory Icons for Collision-Avoidance Warnings. Paper presented at the 1995 Annual Meeting of Intelligent Transportation Society of America, Washington, D. C.
6.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (2005). Fatality Fact 2003s: Roadside Hazards. IIHS. Retrieved June 10th, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://www.iihs.org.
7.
JanssenW.NilssonL. (1993). Behavioral Effects of Driver Support. In ParkesA. M.FranzenS.Driving Future Vehicles (pp. 147–155). London: Taylor & Francis.
8.
LernerN. D.DekkerD. K.SteinbergG. V.HueyR. W. (1996). Inappropriate Alarm Rates and Driver Annoyance (DOT HS 808 533). Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Transportation.
9.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1996). Preliminary Human Factors Guidelines for Crash Avoidance Warning Devices (NHTSA Project No. DTNH22–91-C-07004). Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA.
10.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2003). Fatality Analysis Reporting System Web-Based Encyclopedia. U. S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA. Retrieved April 28th, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/.
11.
NeurauterM. L. (2004). Multidimensional Warnings: Determining an Appropriate Stimulus for a Curve-Warning Device. (Unpublished Thesis) Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
12.
PomerleauD.JochemT.ThorpeC.BaraviaP.PapeD.HaddenJ.McMillanN.BrownN.EversonJ. (1999). Run-Off-Road Collision Avoidance Using IVHS Countermeasures (DOT HS 809 170). Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
13.
ShutkoJ. (1999). An Investigation of Collision Avoidance Warnings on Brake Response Times of Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers. (Unpublished Thesis) Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
14.
TanA. K.LernerN. D. (1995). Multiple Attribute Evaluation of Auditory Warning Signals for In-Vehicle Crash Avoidance Warning Systems (DOT HS 808 535). Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Transportation.
15.
TsimhoniO.WatanabeH.GreenP.FriedmanD. (2000). Display of Short Text Messages on Automotive HUDs: Effects of Driving Workload and Message Location (UMTRI-00–13). Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
16.
UnoH.HiramatsuL.ItoH.AtsumiB.AkamatsuM. (1999). Communication of Criticality and Urgency by Assignment of Visual and Auditory Qualities for In-Vehicle Display. Paper presented at the 6th ITS world Congress. Paper No.3005.
17.
Warshawsky-LivneL.ShinarD. (2002). Effects of Uncertainty, Transmission Type, Driver Age and Gener on Brake Reation and Movement Time. Journal of Safety Research, 33(1), 117–128.
18.
WoodJ. M. (1999). How do Visual Status and Age Impact on Driving Performance as Measured on a Closed Circuit Driving Track. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 19(1), 34–40.
19.
YooH.TsimhoniO.WatanabeH.GreenP.ShahR. (1999). Display of HUD Warnings to Drivers: Determining an Optimal Location (UMTRI-99–9). Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
