DO IN-VEHICLE ADVANCE SIGNS BENEFIT OLDER AND

YOUNGER DRIVER INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE?

Professor: LiuStudent: Ruby

Purpose & Motive

• Purpose– Using the HUD to decrease the accident in the interacti

on.

• Motive– Older drivers have the high percentage in the crash.– The advanced signs which can improve the car accident

s.

References

1. Older drivers have the higher occurrence at the interaction accidents. (Preusser et al., 1998)

2. Older drivers have the lower reaction times, bad vision, and slower information processing abilities. (Caird et al, 2005; Maltz & Shinar, 1999)

Method • Driving simulator

– The simulator was combined with KQ Corporation (DriveSafety).

• Eye Movement System– Applied Sciences Laboratory (ASL) 501 system.– Head Mounted Optics Module (HMO).– Magnetic Head Tracking Hardware (MHT).

Method

• Participants– 12 Young people. (6 male and 6 female)

• The age is from 18 to 24 (M=21.5)

– 12 Old people. (6 male and 6 female)• The age is from 65 to 76 (M=69.2)

– The detail is showed on Table 1.

Table 1

Procedures

• 6-minute practice drive included two light changes: one at 2.21 s and one at 1.73 s from the intersection stop line.

• Four 10-minute drives and for each session have 12 intersections.

• 48 interactions, there were 24 traffic sign changed to yellow. Half were 1.73 s and half were 2.21 s.

Procedures• The first and last experiment session were base

line.• The occurrence of lights that changed were ran

domized within each drive.• The rectangular and diamond sign icons were

displayed for 4 seconds in the HUD.

Result • Independent variables:

– Age group (18-24, 65+).– Drive type (baseline and experimental).– Head-up display sign type (diamond and

rectangular signs).• Dependent variables:

– Stop or go behavior.– Vertical and horizontal stare variability.– Stare duration percent.– Stare count.

Result - Stop / Go probability

• The percentage of those differed between age groups in the baseline (χ2 (1, 288) = 4.4, p < 0.037) and HUD (χ2 (1, 288) = 11.8, p < 0.001) conditions

Result – Eye Movement Analysis• Vertical variability.

– Younger drivers had significantly greater vertical stare variability than the older group. F(1, 322) = 22.60, p< 0.001.

– In the baseline condition, drivers had significantly greater variability in vertical stare position than the experimental condition with the HUD. F(1, 322) = 4.18, p = 0.05.

• Horizontal variability.– Older drivers had significantly greater horizontal variability compared t

o the younger drivers. F(1, 322) = 31.71, p <0.001.– In the baseline drive, a significantly higher horizontal stare variability

was found compared to the experimental HUD drive. F(1, 322) =10.47, p < 0.05.

– Older drivers’ horizontal stare variability was significantly greater in the baseline intersections than in the experimental HUD intersections.

Result – Eye Movement Analysis

• Fixation duration percent.– Younger drivers spent a significantly large percent of th

eir time stare on the HUD compared to the older drivers. F(1, 122) = 15.74, p < 0.001.

• Fixation count.– The older drivers made a significantly larger number of

stares to the roadway scene compared to the younger drivers. F(1, 298) = 15.86, p < 0.001.

– Younger drivers made significantly more stares to the HUD itself compared to the older drivers. F(1, 122) = 10.94, p= 0.001.

Discussion

• Younger drivers tended to focus on the HUD more often the older drivers, it because:– They may have been less comfortable restricting

their search for important traffic information ahead.

– Younger drivers may have been more curious about the HUD presence, and thus looked at it more often.

Discussion• When the HUD was present, stare variability

decreased in both planes. The advanced HUD sign may decrease the requirement to look at the traffic lights as frequently.

• Reductions in horizontal scanning may carryover from looking at the HUD, which is not necessarily a positive benefit.