Effects of simulated mild vision loss on gaze, driving and interaction behaviors in pedestrian crossing situations.

PURPOSE Interaction is the process of behavior adaption between two or more participants primarily based on what they visually perceive. It is an important aspect of traffic participation and supports a safe and efficient flow of traffic. However, prior driving simulator studies investigating the effects of vision impairment have typically used pre-programmed pedestrians that did not interact with the human driver. In the current study we used a linked pedestrian and driving simulator setting to increase the ecological validity of the experimental paradigm. We evaluated the effects of mild vision loss on interactions between drivers and human-controlled, interactive pedestrians compared to preprogrammed, non-interactive pedestrians. METHOD Young subjects (mean age 31 years) wore safety goggles with diffusing filters that reduced visual acuity to 20/50 Snellen and contrast sensitivity to 1.49 log units. Two types of crossings (zebra vs. free lane) and two types of pedestrians (non-interactive vs. interactive) were presented to the driver using a multiple simulator setting. Gaze, safety and time series measures were analyzed to quantify the behavior of the participants during the different crossing situations. RESULTS Simulated vision impairment significantly increased the time taken to first fixate on the pedestrian, but only had mild adverse effects on safety measures and subsequent interactions. By comparison, pedestrian type and crossing type were found to significantly affect interaction measures. In crossings with the interactive pedestrians the behavior adaption between the driver and the pedestrian took longer and was less correlated in contrast to the situations with the non-interactive pedestrian. CONCLUSION Mild vision impairment (slightly worse than the common 20/40 requirement for driving) had little effect on interactions with pedestrians once they were detected and only had mild adverse consequences on driving safety. Time series measures were sensitive to differences in behavior adaption between road users depending on the level of interaction and type of crossing situation.

[1]  Cynthia Owsley,et al.  A roadmap for interpreting the literature on vision and driving. , 2015, Survey of ophthalmology.

[2]  Joanne M Wood,et al.  Eye Movements and Road Hazard Detection: Effects of Blur and Distractors , 2016, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[3]  Mandy Dotzauer,et al.  Multi-Road User Simulation: Methodological Considerations from Study Planning to Data Analysis , 2017 .

[4]  Joseph H. Goldberg,et al.  Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols , 2000, ETRA.

[5]  Michael Bach,et al.  The Freiburg Visual Acuity Test-Variability unchanged by post-hoc re-analysis , 2007, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[6]  Alex R. Bowers,et al.  The effects of simulated acuity and contrast sensitivity impairments on detection of pedestrian hazards in a driving simulator. , 2018, Transportation research. Part F, Traffic psychology and behaviour.

[7]  Mohamed Abdel-Aty,et al.  Validating a driving simulator using surrogate safety measures. , 2008, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[8]  Eli Peli,et al.  Driving with central field loss I: effect of central scotomas on responses to hazards. , 2013, JAMA ophthalmology.

[9]  Andreas Pütz,et al.  Methodology and Results for the Investigation of Interactions Between Pedestrians and Vehicles in Real and Controlled Traffic Conditions , 2018 .

[10]  Thomas J Triggs,et al.  Driving simulator validation for speed research. , 2002, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[11]  Alex R. Bowers,et al.  Visual Attention Measures Predict Pedestrian Detection in Central Field Loss: A Pilot Study , 2014, PloS one.

[12]  A. Katz,et al.  An Experimental Study of Driver and Pedestrian Interaction during the Crossing Conflict , 1975 .

[13]  Nathaniel D. Phillips,et al.  YaRrr! The Pirate’s Guide to R , 2017 .

[14]  Sebastian Will.  A New Approach to Investigate Powered Two Wheelers’ Interactions with Passenger Car Drivers: the Motorcycle – Car Multi-Driver Simulation , 2018 .

[15]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  Insights into Interaction - Effects of Human-Human Interaction in Pedestrian Crossing Situations using a linked Simulator Environment , 2016 .

[16]  A L Goldberger,et al.  Physiological time-series analysis: what does regularity quantify? , 1994, The American journal of physiology.

[17]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  Agreeing to cross: How drivers and pedestrians communicate , 2017, 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

[18]  Ralf Risser,et al.  Pedestrian-driver communication and decision strategies at marked crossings. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[19]  P A Hancock,et al.  Behavioural accident avoidance science: understanding response in collision incipient conditions , 2003, Ergonomics.

[20]  Ruey S. Tsay,et al.  Analysis of Financial Time Series , 2005 .

[21]  John W Philbeck,et al.  Peripheral vision benefits spatial learning by guiding eye movements , 2012, Memory & Cognition.

[22]  Eli Peli,et al.  Driving with hemianopia: IV. Head scanning and detection at intersections in a simulator. , 2014, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[23]  Jeroen Hogema,et al.  TIME-TO-COLLISION AND COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEMS , 1994 .

[24]  Wuhong Wang,et al.  Analysis of the Influence of Pedestrians’ eye Contact on Drivers’ Comfort Boundary During the Crossing Conflict , 2016 .

[25]  J. Wood,et al.  Predicting Components of Closed Road Driving Performance From Vision Tests , 2005, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[26]  Nicolas Guéguen,et al.  A pedestrian’s stare and drivers’ stopping behavior: A field experiment at the pedestrian crossing , 2015 .

[27]  Christian Lehsing,et al.  Urban Interaction - Getting Vulnerable Road Users into Driving Simulation , 2018 .

[28]  Alex R. Bowers,et al.  Driving with Central Visual Field Loss II: How Scotomas above or below the Preferred Retinal Locus (PRL) Affect Hazard Detection in a Driving Simulator , 2015, PloS one.

[29]  George Yannis,et al.  Human factors of pedestrian walking and crossing behaviour , 2017 .

[30]  Sarah Schmidt,et al.  Pedestrians at the kerb – Recognising the action intentions of humans , 2009 .

[31]  C. Hydén,et al.  Evaluation of traffic safety, based on micro-level behavioural data: theoretical framework and first implementation. , 2010, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[32]  Irene Gohl,et al.  Analyzing driver-pedestrian interaction at crosswalks: A contribution to autonomous driving in urban environments , 2016, 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

[33]  Concetta F. Alberti,et al.  Driving with hemianopia: III. Detection of stationary and approaching pedestrians in a simulator. , 2014, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[34]  M. Mudelsee.  Climate Time Series Analysis: Classical Statistical and Bootstrap Methods , 2010 .

[35]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  Urban perception - A cross-correlation approach to quantify the social interaction in a multiple simulator setting , 2015, 2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[36]  B. Hills.  Vision, Visibility, and Perception in Driving , 1980, Perception.

[37]  A. Horst.  A time-based analysis of road user behaviour in normal and critical encounters , 1990 .

[38]  J. Theeuwes,et al.  Driving Simulator Validity: Some Considerations , 1996 .

[39]  Biswajit Basu,et al.  Multivariate Short-Term Traffic Flow Forecasting Using Time-Series Analysis , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[40]  Eugene Farber,et al.  Forensic Aspects of Driver Perception and Response , 1996 .

[41]  John D. Lee,et al.  Handbook of Driving Simulation for Engineering, Medicine and Psychology: An Overview , 2011 .