The Hazard Perception for the Surrounding Shape of Warning Signs: Evidence From an Event-Related Potentials Study

Surrounding shape is a very important component of warning signs. Unlike colors, signal words, and pictorials that can directly convey the surface meaning, the surrounding shapes of warning signs convey warning information somewhat obscurely. Most of the researchers who studied this topic investigated the individuals' hazard perception of the surrounding shapes of warning signs by using questionnaires. In addition, the scholars' points about the role of the surrounding shapes are inconsistent. This study, therefore, decided to use Event-Related Potentials (ERP) technology to explore the impact of the shapes on the perception of warning signs to find the evidences of the hazard perception of the shapes from the electrophysiological perspective. Using the Oddball paradigm, we found four components caused by different shapes of warning signs. Specifically, P200 amplitude characterizes the attraction to attention of surrounding shapes in the early automatic perception stage, the N300 components represented the emotional valance and arousal level, the P300 and the LPP connoted uneasy/unsafe information and reflected the inhibition strength on the uneasy/unsafe information. Experimental data indicated that the shape of UPRIGHT TRIANGLE had larger arousal strength and more negative valence than the shape of CIRCLE. People get stronger negative information from the UPRIGHT TRIANGLE shapes than from the CIRCLE. This finding might be helpful for designing the surrounding shapes of warning signs.

[1]  M. Bar,et al.  Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[2]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  Chinese perceptions of implied hazard for signal words and surround shapes , 2004 .

[3]  Joshua Correll,et al.  Event-related potentials and the decision to shoot: The role of threat perception and cognitive control , 2006 .

[4]  Luis Carretié,et al.  A Study on the Emotional Processing of Visual Stimuli through Event-Related Potentials , 1997, Brain and Cognition.

[6]  Jiajin Yuan,et al.  Event-related potential correlates of the collective self-relevant effect , 2009, Neuroscience Letters.

[7]  Michael A. Rodriguez.  What Makes a Warning Label Salient? , 1991 .

[8]  L Carretié,et al.  Emotion, attention, and the 'negativity bias', studied through event-related potentials. , 2001, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[9]  Qingguo Ma,et al.  Event-related potential P2 correlates of implicit aesthetic experience , 2012, Neuroreport.

[10]  E. Donchin.  Presidential address, 1980. Surprise!...Surprise? , 1981, Psychophysiology.

[12]  Yue-Jia Luo,et al.  Temporal course of emotional negativity bias: An ERP study , 2006, Neuroscience Letters.

[13]  S. David Leonard.  Does color of warnings affect risk perception , 1999 .

[14]  Kenneth R. Laughery,et al.  Warnings and risk communication , 1999 .

[15]  J. Qiu,et al.  Emotional arousal to negative information after traumatic experiences: an event-related brain potential study , 2011, Neuroscience.

[16]  Michael W. Riley,et al.  An Investigation of Preferred Shapes for Warning Labels , 1982 .

[17]  M. Crommelinck,et al.  Discrimination of emotional facial expressions in a visual oddball task: an ERP study , 2002, Biological Psychology.

[18]  Wendy A. Rogers,et al.  Warning Research: An Integrative Perspective , 2000, Hum. Factors.

[19]  Manuel Martín-Loeches,et al.  Electrophysiological brain dynamics during the esthetic judgment of human bodies and faces , 2015, Brain Research.

[20]  Shiwei Jia,et al.  Are we sensitive to valence differences in emotionally negative stimuli? Electrophysiological evidence from an ERP study , 2007, Neuropsychologia.

[21]  Sander Nieuwenhuis,et al.  Functional significance of the emotion-related late positive potential , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[22]  E. Donchin,et al.  The influence of stimulus deviance and novelty on the P300 and novelty P3. , 2002, Psychophysiology.

[23]  Hideki Ohira,et al.  An ERP study on self-relevant object recognition , 2007, Brain and Cognition.

[24]  Jeff T. Larsen,et al.  Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: the negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[25]  S. Rauch,et al.  Masked Presentations of Emotional Facial Expressions Modulate Amygdala Activity without Explicit Knowledge , 1998, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[26]  Blair T. Johnson,et al.  The self-reference effect in memory: a meta-analysis. , 1997, Psychological bulletin.

[27]  Christine L Larson,et al.  Simple geometric shapes are implicitly associated with affective value , 2011, Motivation and Emotion.

[28]  L Carretié,et al.  N300, P300 and the emotional processing of visual stimuli. , 1997, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[29]  S L Young.  Connotation of hazard for signal words and their associated panels. , 1998, Applied ergonomics.

[30]  Lei Wang,et al.  The neural process of hazard perception and evaluation for warning signal words: Evidence from event-related potentials , 2010, Neuroscience Letters.