Car Backlight Position and Fog Density Bias Observer-Car Distance Estimates and Time-to-Collision Judgments

Objective: A series of experiments assessed biases in perceived distance that occur while driving as a function of the backlight position of the car ahead and fog density. Background: V. Cavallo, M. Colomb, and J. Doré (2001) have shown that smaller horizontal backlight separation and fog may result in increased estimates of the distance between an observer and a car of which only the backlights are visible. They also predicted that raising the height of the car backlights would lead to increasing distance estimates. Method: Distance perception was assessed in both static and dynamic computer-simulated scenarios in which the distance estimates were performed using a familiarized analog scale or using time-to-collision judgments for both pairs of backlights and single backlights. Results: In a series of five experiments, the horizontal separation and fog density effects were replicated. In addition, distance estimates were consistently larger with higher than with lower vertical backlight positions. Conclusion: There is reason to believe that biases in distance perception may be augmented by car backlight positions and by low-visibility weather conditions. Application: Car designers should take backlight placement seriously. Speed-dependent car-to-car distance control systems seem desirable to counteract biases in distance perception.

[1]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  V Cavallo,et al.  Visual Information and Skill Level in Time-To-Collision Estimation , 1988, Perception.

[3]  David N. Lee,et al.  A Theory of Visual Control of Braking Based on Information about Time-to-Collision , 1976, Perception.

[4]  R. Hawkins Motorway Traffic Behaviour in Reduced Visibility Conditions , 1988 .

[5]  Herschel W. Leibowitz,et al.  The Human Senses in Flight , 1988 .

[6]  Daniel Mestre,et al.  TIME-TO-COLLISION JUDGEMENTS: VISUAL AND SPATIO-TEMPORAL FACTORS , 1997 .

[7]  R. Snowden,et al.  Speed perception fogs up as visibility drops , 1998, Nature.

[8]  W. H. Ittelson,et al.  Experiments in Perception , 1951 .

[9]  I. Brown,et al.  Vision in Vehicles III , 1991 .

[10]  A. Sockloff,et al.  Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences: (revised edition), by Jacob Cohen. New York: Academic Press, 1977, xv + 474 pp., $24.50. , 1978 .

[11]  Bettina Berendt,et al.  Investigating Distance Knowledge Using Virtual Environments , 2002 .

[12]  G A FRY,et al.  The effects of atmospheric scattering on binocular depth perception. , 1949, American journal of optometry and archives of American Academy of Optometry.

[13]  S. Blackburn,et al.  Contrast as a depth cue , 1994, Vision Research.

[14]  M Schmid,et al.  UNFALLRISIKO VON PKW UNTERSCHIEDLICHER FAHRZEUGTYPEN , 1996 .

[15]  G. Laurent,et al.  Collision-avoidance: nature's many solutions , 1998, Nature Neuroscience.

[16]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  GPOWER: A general power analysis program , 1996 .

[17]  T. Rothengatter,et al.  Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application , 1997 .

[18]  R. D. Ray,et al.  Trends in Ergonomics/Human Factors II , 1985 .

[19]  Viola Cavallo,et al.  Distance Perception of Vehicle Rear Lights in Fog , 2001, Hum. Factors.

[20]  David C. Nagel,et al.  Human factors in aviation , 1988 .

[21]  H E Ross Water, fog and the size-distance invariance hypothesis. , 1967, British journal of psychology.

[22]  Patricia R. DeLucia,et al.  Judgments about collision in younger and older drivers , 2003 .

[23]  Petra Jansen-Osmann,et al.  Using desktop virtual environments to investigate the role of landmarks , 2002, Comput. Hum. Behav..