OBJECTIVE: We conducted a driving simulator study to investigate scanning and hazard detection before entering an intersection. BACKGROUND: Insufficient scanning has been suggested as a factor contributing to intersection crashes. However, little is known about the relative importance of the head and eye movement components of that scanning in peripheral hazard detection. METHODS: Eleven older (mean 67 years) and 18 younger (mean 27 years) current drivers drove in a simulator while their head and eye movements were tracked. They completed two city drives (42 intersections per drive) with motorcycle hazards appearing at 16 four-way intersections per drive. RESULTS: Older subjects missed more hazards (10.2% vs. 5.2%). Failing to make a scan with a substantial head movement was the primary reason for missed hazards. When hazards were detected, older drivers had longer RTs (2.6s vs. 2.3s), but drove more slowly; thus, safe response rates did not differ between the two groups (older 83%; younger 82%). Safe responses were associated with larger (28.8° vs. 20.6°) and more numerous (9.4 vs. 6.6) gaze scans. Scans containing a head movement were stronger predictors of safe responses than scans containing only eye movements. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the importance of making large scans with a substantial head movement before entering an intersection. Eye-only scans played little role in detection and safe responses to peripheral hazards. APPLICATION: Driver training programs should address the importance of making large scans with a substantial head movement before entering an intersection.
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a driving simulator study to investigate scanning and hazard detection before entering an intersection. BACKGROUND: Insufficient scanning has been suggested as a factor contributing to intersection crashes. However, little is known about the relative importance of the head and eye movement components of that scanning in peripheral hazard detection. METHODS: Eleven older (mean 67 years) and 18 younger (mean 27 years) current drivers drove in a simulator while their head and eye movements were tracked. They completed two city drives (42 intersections per drive) with motorcycle hazards appearing at 16 four-way intersections per drive. RESULTS: Older subjects missed more hazards (10.2% vs. 5.2%). Failing to make a scan with a substantial head movement was the primary reason for missed hazards. When hazards were detected, older drivers had longer RTs (2.6s vs. 2.3s), but drove more slowly; thus, safe response rates did not differ between the two groups (older 83%; younger 82%). Safe responses were associated with larger (28.8° vs. 20.6°) and more numerous (9.4 vs. 6.6) gaze scans. Scans containing a head movement were stronger predictors of safe responses than scans containing only eye movements. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the importance of making large scans with a substantial head movement before entering an intersection. Eye-only scans played little role in detection and safe responses to peripheral hazards. APPLICATION: Driver training programs should address the importance of making large scans with a substantial head movement before entering an intersection.
Entities:
Keywords:
aging; hazard detection; head and eye movements; simulated driving
Authors: Alex R Bowers; P Matthew Bronstad; Lauren P Spano; Robert B Goldstein; Eli Peli Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 3.283