Can Secondary Traffic Alerts Improve the Latent Hazard Anticipation Ability of Novice and Experienced Drivers? A Simulator Study

The current simulator study aims to investigate whether warnings of an impending latent hazard, delivered on Google Glass can improve both, young and middle-aged drivers’ latent hazard anticipation ability. Twenty young and 30 middle-aged drivers were pseudo-randomly assigned to either the Google Glass condition or the control condition. All participants completed seven simulated driving scenarios with potential hazards. Participants in the Glass condition received text messages alerting them about the presence of a potential hazard, approximately 400 ft in advance of the hazard. Participants in the control condition received no such alerts. The results showed that warnings on Google Glass significantly improved the proportion of latent hazards anticipated by young drivers. The performance of middle-aged drivers was not affected by the warnings. It is concluded that head mounted displays like Google Glass offer a promising platform for the delivery of traffic warnings to help young driver better detect hazards on the road. However, its application on middle-aged drivers requires further research attention.

[1]  Andreas Butz,et al.  Are HMDs the better HUDs? , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR).

[2]  Sarah Sharples,et al.  Virtual reality induced symptoms and effects (VRISE): Comparison of head mounted display (HMD), desktop and projection display systems , 2008, Displays.

[3]  Andreas Butz,et al.  In-your-face, yet unseen?: improving head-stabilized warnings to reduce reaction time , 2014, CHI.

[4]  Tal Oron-Gilad,et al.  Age, skill, and hazard perception in driving. , 2010, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[5]  Amanda N Stephens,et al.  In the eye of the beholder: A simulator study of the impact of Google Glass on driving performance. , 2016, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[6]  Jingyi Zhang,et al.  Do Traffic Warnings on Heads-Mounted Displays Improve Latent Hazard Anticipation? A Simulator Study , 2016 .

[7]  Ben D. Sawyer,et al.  Google Glass , 2014, Hum. Factors.

[8]  Hamish A Deery,et al.  Hazard and Risk Perception among Young Novice Drivers , 1999 .

[9]  Donald L Fisher,et al.  Evaluation of the effectiveness of a multi-skill program for training younger drivers on higher cognitive skills. , 2016, Applied ergonomics.

[10]  Jibo He,et al.  Texting while driving using Google Glass™: Promising but not distraction-free. , 2015, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[11]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Head Up versus Head Down: The Costs of Imprecision, Unreliability, and Visual Clutter on Cue Effectiveness for Display Signaling , 2003, Hum. Factors.

[12]  Ming-Hui Wen,et al.  Comparison of head-up display (HUD) vs. head-down display (HDD): driving performance of commercial vehicle operators in Taiwan , 2004, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  Dennis B. Beringer,et al.  Head-mounted displays for civil helicopter navigation and obstacle avoidance , 2013 .

[14]  Stefan Mattes,et al.  Surrogate Distraction Measurement Techniques: The Lane Change Test , 2009 .

[15]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Using Eye Movements To Evaluate Effects of Driver Age on Risk Perception in a Driving Simulator , 2005, Hum. Factors.

[16]  Shuo Yuan.  Human machine interface design for next generation of vehicle , 2014 .

[17]  Byron J. Pierce,et al.  Perceptual Issues in the Use of Head-Mounted Visual Displays , 2006, Hum. Factors.