Replicating Test Track Protocols in a Simulator: What Needs to be Matched?

Many different experimental methods are used to evaluate driving performance as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of various vehicle safety systems but the results often do not match between different experimental approaches. This study aimed to determine the extent to which results can be matched between a driving simulator and a test track when carefully designed studies are used to replicate findings. This study collected simulator data on the National Advanced Driving Simulator (NADS) at the University of Iowa to replicate findings concerning Forward-Crash-Warning interface effectiveness at the Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC), East Liberty Ohio. The simulator used a virtual replica of the test track as well as a road course. Event choreography and scanning behavior were compared. Results indicate that results from the simulator were similar to those obtained on the test track. This indicates simulators can replicate findings for the test track and are a valuable tool. Careful experimental design is required to match the event choreography to insure an appropriate comparison. An exact match of the driving environment was not needed for this interface evaluation to obtain comparable results. The extent to which matching motion cues was not evaluated and may prove challenging in simulators without motion systems.

[1]  Riender Happee,et al.  Advantages and Disadvantages of Driving Simulators: A Discussion , 2012 .

[2]  Neil D. Lerner,et al.  Crash Warning Interface Metrics Final Report , 2011 .

[3]  Lynn B. Meuleners,et al.  A validation study of driving errors using a driving simulator , 2015 .

[4]  Daniel V. McGehee,et al.  Comparison of Driver Braking Responses in a High-Fidelity Simulator and on a Test Track , 2002 .

[5]  Garrick J. Forkenbrock,et al.  A Test Track Protocol for Assessing Forward Collision Warning Driver-Vehicle Interface Effectiveness , 2011 .

[6]  Herb M Simpson,et al.  On-road and simulated driving: concurrent and discriminant validation. , 2011, Journal of safety research.

[7]  Daniel V. McGehee,et al.  DRIVER DISTRACTION, WARNING ALGORITHM PARAMETERS, AND DRIVER RESPONSE TO IMMINENT REAR-END COLLISIONS IN A HIGH-FIDELITY DRIVING SIMULATOR , 2002 .

[8]  Marieke Hendrikje Martens,et al.  Driver headway choice: A comparison between driving simulator and real-road driving , 2014 .

[9]  Sherrilene Classen,et al.  Comparison of Driving Errors Between On-the-Road and Simulated Driving Assessment: A Validation Study , 2009, Traffic injury prevention.

[10]  Karel Brookhuis,et al.  Comparing a driving simulator to the real road regarding distracted driving speed , 2015, European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research.

[11]  Cristy Ho,et al.  Using Peripersonal Warning Signals to Orient a Driver’s Gaze , 2009, Hum. Factors.

[12]  E. Salas,et al.  Human Factors : The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society , 2012 .

[13]  Timothy L. Brown,et al.  Validation of Stopping and Turning Behavior for Novice Drivers in the National Advanced Driving Simulator , 2007 .

[14]  Anne Bolling,et al.  Validating speed and road surface realism in VTI driving simulator III , 2012 .

[15]  Orit Shechtman Validation of Driving Simulators , 2010 .

[16]  Kenneth S Opiela,et al.  Validate First; Simulate Later: A New Approach Used at the FHWA Highway Driving Simulator , 2005 .