| Literature DB >> 31710652 |
Zizheng Guo1,2,3,4, Xi Tan1,2,3, Yufan Pan1,2,3, Xian Liu1,2,3, Guozhen Zhao4, Lin Wang1,2,3, Zhen Peng5.
Abstract
The obscured pedestrian-motor vehicle crash has become a serious danger to driving safety. The present study aims to investigate the contingent negative variation (CNV) during the anticipation of an obscured pedestrian-motor vehicle crash in simulated driving. We adopted two cueing tasks: (i) a traditional cognitive paradigm of cueing task that has been widely used to study anticipatory process, and (ii) a modified cueing task in simulated driving scenes, in which Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals of 32 participants were recorded to detect the CNV. Simulated car following and pedestrian crossing tasks were designed to measure anticipation-related driving behaviors. The results showed that both early and late CNVs were observed in two cueing tasks. The mean amplitude of the late CNV during a modified cueing task in simulated driving was significantly larger than that in a traditional cueing task, which was not the case for the early CNV potentials. In addition, both early and late CNVs elicited in simulated driving were significantly correlated with anticipatory driving behaviors (e.g., the minimum time to collision). These findings show that CNV potentials during the anticipation of an obscured pedestrian-motor vehicle crash might predict anticipation-related risky driving behaviors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31710652 PMCID: PMC6844449 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224966
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Schematic diagram showing the timing of the cognitive paradigm of a cueing task.
A square symbol was presented in the center for 3000 ms as the cue stimulus. A small person symbol (target stimulus) appeared in the center of the square. The participants were asked to press the corresponding button as soon as the target stimulus was presented.
Fig 2Schematic diagram of the timing of the modified cueing task in simulated driving.
(A) The participants were instructed to drive in the middle of the right lane at a fixed speed of 25 mph. A parked bus appeared at the bus station as a cue stimulus, and a pedestrian was obscured by the bus. (B) After driving the simulator for 3 s, the pedestrian (target stimulus) would suddenly appear 1 foot from the left edge of the bus. (C) The participants were asked to turn the steering wheel towards the left to avoid hitting the simulated pedestrian and then to get the car back in the right lane as quickly as possible.
Fig 3The experimental procedures.
The formal testing session consisted of two cueing tasks (cognitive cueing paradigm vs. modified cueing task in simulated driving) and two simulated driving tasks (CF and PC).
Fig 4STISIM driving simulator.
Fig 5ERP in the baseline condition.
(A) Grand average ERP locked to cue stimuli at the CZ electrode. (B) Topographic scalp distribution of CNV mean amplitude between 1000 and 2000 ms, (C) Topographic scalp distribution of CNV mean amplitude between 2000 and 3000 ms.
Fig 6ERP in the driving condition.
(A) Grand average ERP locked to cue stimuli at the CZ electrode. (B) Topographic scalp distribution of CNV mean amplitude between 1000 and 2000 ms, (C) Topographic scalp distribution of CNV mean amplitude between 2000 and 3000 ms.
Fig 7Grand averages ERP locked to cue stimuli at FC1, FCZ, FC2, C1, CZ, and C2 electrodes are shown in black for the baseline condition and in red for the driving condition.
The mean amplitude and standard error of early and late CNVs in baseline and driving conditions at FC1, FCZ, FC2, C1, CZ, and C2 electrodes.
| Condition | Baseline Condition | Driving Condition | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Electrode site | Early CNV | Late CNV | Early CNV | Late CNV |
| FC1 | -0.57(0.08) | -1.08(0.11) | -1.63(0.06) | -3.76(0.09) |
| FCZ | -1.21(0.10) | -1.93(0.14) | -0.24(0.08) | -2.56(0.12) |
| FC2 | -0.92(0.09) | -1.64(0.11) | -1.02(0.08) | -3.38(0.12) |
| C1 | -0.46(0.07) | -1.09(0.11) | -1.65(0.13) | -3.96(0.15) |
| CZ | -0.85(0.11) | -1.54(0.15) | -0.84(0.09) | -3.08(0.12) |
| C2 | -0.18(0.10) | -0.60(0.13) | -1.01(0.12) | -2.90(0.14) |
The correlation between the mean amplitude of CNV in driving condition and driving behaviors.
| CNV | Electrode | CF Task | PC Task | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| min | left | right | left | right | ||
| Early | FC1 | -0.293 | 0.373 | 0.099 | -0.151 | -0.229 |
| FCZ | -0.151 | 0.096 | 0.049 | -0.135 | 0.011 | |
| FC2 | -0.409 | 0.070 | 0.058 | -0.062 | 0.023 | |
| C1 | -0.560 | 0.379 | 0.256 | -0.131 | -0.168 | |
| CZ | -0.279 | -0.038 | -0.181 | 0.006 | 0.102 | |
| C2 | -0.396 | -0.089 | -0.179 | 0.009 | 0.061 | |
| Late | FC1 | -0.195 | 0.129 | 0.163 | -0.160 | -0.205 |
| FCZ | -0.196 | 0.106 | 0.263 | -0.183 | -0.117 | |
| FC2 | -0.379 | 0.085 | 0.137 | -0.115 | -0.119 | |
| C1 | -0.557 | 0.321 | 0.343 | -0.141 | -0.189 | |
| CZ | -0.302 | -0.039 | -0.043 | -0.027 | 0.019 | |
| C2 | -0.379 | -0.039 | 0.009 | -0.019 | -0.033 | |
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.