OBJECTIVE: This paper's first objective is to determine whether motor priming assistance (consisting of directional steering wheel vibrations) can be of some benefit compared with more traditional auditory (lateralized sound) or vibratory (symmetric steering wheel oscillation) warning devices. We hypothesize that warning devices favor driving situation diagnosis, whereas motor priming can improve the initiation of action even further. Another objective is to assess the possible benefits of using multimodal information by combining auditory warning with simple steering wheel vibration or motor priming. BACKGROUND: Within the context of active safety devices, the experiment dealt with moderately intrusive driving assistance devices that intervene when a certain level of risk in terms of lane departure is reached. METHOD: An analysis of the steering behavior of 20 participants following episodes of visual occlusion was carried out. Five warning and motor priming devices were compared. RESULTS: All tested devices improved the drivers' steering performance, although their effects were modulated by the drivers' risk assessment. However, performance improvements were found to be greater with a motor priming device. No additional performance enhancement was observed when auditory warning was added to steering wheel vibration or motor priming devices. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the hypothesis that the direct intervention of motor priming at the action level is more effective than a simple warning, which intervenes upstream in situation diagnosis. Multimodal information did not seem to improve driver performance. APPLICATION: This study proposes a new kind of lateral control assistance, which acts at a sensorimotor level, in contrast with traditional warning devices.
OBJECTIVE: This paper's first objective is to determine whether motor priming assistance (consisting of directional steering wheel vibrations) can be of some benefit compared with more traditional auditory (lateralized sound) or vibratory (symmetric steering wheel oscillation) warning devices. We hypothesize that warning devices favor driving situation diagnosis, whereas motor priming can improve the initiation of action even further. Another objective is to assess the possible benefits of using multimodal information by combining auditory warning with simple steering wheel vibration or motor priming. BACKGROUND: Within the context of active safety devices, the experiment dealt with moderately intrusive driving assistance devices that intervene when a certain level of risk in terms of lane departure is reached. METHOD: An analysis of the steering behavior of 20 participants following episodes of visual occlusion was carried out. Five warning and motor priming devices were compared. RESULTS: All tested devices improved the drivers' steering performance, although their effects were modulated by the drivers' risk assessment. However, performance improvements were found to be greater with a motor priming device. No additional performance enhancement was observed when auditory warning was added to steering wheel vibration or motor priming devices. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the hypothesis that the direct intervention of motor priming at the action level is more effective than a simple warning, which intervenes upstream in situation diagnosis. Multimodal information did not seem to improve driver performance. APPLICATION: This study proposes a new kind of lateral control assistance, which acts at a sensorimotor level, in contrast with traditional warning devices.
Authors: David W Eby; Lisa J Molnar; Liang Zhang; Renée M St Louis; Nicole Zanier; Lidia P Kostyniuk; Sergiu Stanciu Journal: Inj Epidemiol Date: 2016-12-19