Gaze position modulates the effectiveness of forward collision warnings for drowsy drivers.

Advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) have the potential to prevent crashes and reduce their severity. Forward collision warnings (FCW) are quickly becoming standard across vehicle lineups and may prevent frontal crashes by alerting drivers. Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of FCW for distracted drivers, but their effectiveness for other types of impairment remains unknown. Like distraction, drowsiness can impair driver response time and lead to crashes. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of FCW for moderately and severely drowsy drivers using a high-fidelity driving simulator. Drowsy drivers were divided into three warning conditions during a revealed stop vehicle forward collision event: An auditory alert, a haptic seat vibration, and a no warning baseline. Results indicate that FCW were effective at speeding drowsy driver response, but only when the drowsy drivers were looking away from the forward roadway at the onset of the event. These results have important implications for ADAS technology and driver state monitoring systems.

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

[2]  Cristy Ho,et al.  Assessing the effectiveness of "intuitive" vibrotactile warning signals in preventing front-to-rear-end collisions in a driving simulator. , 2006, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[3]  John D Lee,et al.  Directing driver attention with augmented reality cues. , 2013, Transportation research. Part F, Traffic psychology and behaviour.

[4]  Anthony D. McDonald,et al.  Steering in a Random Forest , 2014, Hum. Factors.

[5]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[6]  Arthur F. Kramer,et al.  Influence of Age and Proximity Warning Devices on Collision Avoidance in Simulated Driving , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[7]  Jeff Allen Greenberg,et al.  Effects of Adaptive Lane Departure Warning System on Driver Response to a Surprise Event , 2010 .

[8]  W W Wierwille,et al.  Evaluation of driver drowsiness by trained raters. , 1994, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[9]  Hong Z. Tan,et al.  Driver Reaction Time to Tactile and Auditory Rear-End Collision Warnings While Talking on a Cell Phone , 2009, Hum. Factors.

[10]  Serge Boverie,et al.  The Importance of Driver State Assessment Within Highly Automated Vehicles , 2009 .

[11]  R. Croft,et al.  Cognitive components of simulated driving performance: Sleep loss effects and predictors. , 2013, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[12]  Hampton C. Gabler,et al.  Safety Benefits of Forward Collision Warning, Brake Assist, and Autonomous Braking Systems in Rear-End Collisions , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[13]  Timothy L Brown.  Adjusted Minimum Time-to-Collision (TTC): A Robust Approach to Evaluating Crash Scenarios , 2005 .

[14]  R. Ellis,et al.  On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  Anne T McCartt,et al.  Observed activation status of lane departure warning and forward collision warning of Honda vehicles at dealership service centers , 2016, Traffic injury prevention.

[16]  Daniel V. McGehee,et al.  Collision Warning Timing, Driver Distraction, and Driver Response to Imminent Rear-End Collisions in a High-Fidelity Driving Simulator , 2002, Hum. Factors.

[17]  Jon Driver,et al.  Covert Spatial Orienting in Audition: Exogenous and Endogenous Mechanisms , 1994 .

[18]  S. Doran,et al.  Sustained attention performance during sleep deprivation: evidence of state instability. , 2001, Archives italiennes de biologie.

[19]  Robert Gray,et al.  A Comparison of Tactile, Visual, and Auditory Warnings for Rear-End Collision Prevention in Simulated Driving , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[20]  Cristy Ho,et al.  Multisensory In-Car Warning Signals for Collision Avoidance , 2007, Hum. Factors.