The Influence of Driver Expectation when Recognizing Lighted Targets at Nighttime

Over the years, in a night time driving scenario, expectancy has been linked with faster night time recognition. This study tries to evaluate the ability of observers to identify illuminated objects on the road in the absence of an associative pattern. In this study 47 of 60 participants did not respond to a light source that was in the drivers’ travel lane ahead. Of those who did not respond to the light when directly ahead, 64% indicated that had seen it beforehand. When the light was 2 meters to the drivers’ right, 33% that saw the light failed to respond. All of the drivers who saw the light before striking it claimed that they thought it was off the road until too late. When the drivers did not know what the light source was, they could not decipher where the light was. However, once aware of the presence of the light the average recognition distance improved 192 meters (632 feet) with 100% recognition. These results fit well with the SEEV search model and an Information Theory approach to driver expectancy. Previous claims that the difference between expected and unexpected driver responses is a 2 to 1 ratio was not supported by this research.

[1]  W. Adrian,et al.  Visibility of targets: Model for calculation , 1989 .

[2]  Jeffrey W. Muttart,et al.  Relationship Between Relative Velocity Detection and Driver Response Times in Vehicle Following Situations , 2005 .

[3]  David Shinar.  The Effects of Expectancy, Clothing Reflectance, and Detection Criterion on Nighttime Pedestrian Visibility , 1985 .

[4]  David Shinar.  Actual versus estimated night-time pedestrian visibility , 1984 .

[5]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  Engineering Psychology and Human Performance , 1984 .

[6]  Rudolf G. Mortimer.  The Effect of Expectancy on Visibility in Night Driving , 1996 .

[7]  Wade Bartlett,et al.  Determining When an Object Enters the Headlight Beam Pattern of a Vehicle , 2013 .

[8]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Pilot Task Management : Testing an Attentional Expected Value Model of Visual Scanning , 2001 .

[9]  P Van Elslande,et al.  WHEN EXPECTANCIES BECOME CERTAINTIES: A POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT OF EXPERIENCE , 1997 .

[10]  Johnell O Brooks,et al.  Highlighting Human Form and Motion Information Enhances the Conspicuity of Pedestrians at Night , 2008, Perception.

[11]  Eugene I. Farber,et al.  PCDETECT: A REVISED VERSION OF THE DETECT SEEING DISTANCE MODEL , 1989 .

[12]  C. Bundesen.  A theory of visual attention. , 1990, Psychological review.

[13]  M J Allen,et al.  ACTUAL PEDESTRIAN VISIBILITY AND THE PEDESTRIAN'S ESTIMATE OF HIS OWN VISIBILITY* , 1970, American journal of optometry and archives of American Academy of Optometry.

[14]  J. Botwinick.  Aging and Behavior , 1984, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[15]  A. Crawford,et al.  THE PERCEPTION OF LIGHT SIGNALS : THE EFFECT OF MIXING FLASHING AND STEADY IRRELEVANT LIGHTS , 1963 .

[16]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[17]  Christopher Edwards,et al.  Relationship of Vertical Illuminance to Pedestrian Visibility in Crosswalks , 2008 .

[18]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[19]  Richard A. Tyrrell,et al.  Pedestrian Visibility at Night: Effects of Pedestrian Clothing, Driver Age, and Headlamp Beam Setting , 2003 .

[20]  William J Horrey,et al.  Modeling drivers' visual attention allocation while interacting with in-vehicle technologies. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[21]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Empirical Evaluation of Hazard Anticipation Behaviors in the Field and on Driving Simulator Using Eye Tracker , 2007 .

[22]  A. Crawford,et al.  THE PERCEPTION OF LIGHT SIGNALS: THE EFFECT OF THE NUMBER OF IRRELEVANT LIGHTS , 1962 .