Conference: 3rd International Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention (DDI2013), At Gothenburg, Sweden
We conducted an experiment with 22 participants to investigate the effect of secondary task presentation style on driving-related performance. Prior to the experiment, participants were presented with three cognitive ability tests and answered an online survey consisting of the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Scale (DOSPERT), the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ), and some demographic questions. The participants then performed a 1-D tracking (primary) task which simulated longitudinal control of a car. They also performed a vowel counting secondary task (counting the number of vowels in a list of multiple letters) under a variety of conditions. These conditions combined different modalities (audio/visual), presentation styles (simultaneous/sequential), task complexity (the number of distractors), and list lengths. We discuss the experimental results in terms of the impact of individual differences, in risk tolerance and cognitive ability, on how the tasks were performed.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: In general, the unsafe conditions that are likely to produce a motor vehicle crash reside not at the mean of a given distribution (in other words, under typical conditions), but rather in the tails of the distribution. For example, an unusually slow response to a traffic obstacle, rather than an average response, may result in a collision. Although that situation means that crashes are the exception and not the norm, it has implications for how safety-critical data are approached and handled. In this current paper, experimental data collected in a driving simulator are used to demonstrate how an analysis of the average glance durations to an in-vehicle display might lead to different conclusions about safety compared, vith an alternative analysis of the tail end of the distribution. In addition, a model of crash risk based on the distribution of in-vehicle glances is described, as well as several characteristics of the traffic environment.
Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board 12/2007; 1(2018). DOI:10.3141/2018-04 · 0.44 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This paper describes a method for remote, non-contact point-of-gaze (POG) estimation that tolerates free head movements and requires a simple calibration procedure in which the subject has to fixate only on a single point. This method uses the centers of the pupil and at least two corneal reflections (virtual images of light sources) that are estimated from eye images captured by at least two cameras. Experimental results obtained with a prototype system that tolerates head movements in a volume of about 1 dm3, exhibited RMS POG estimation errors of approximately 0.6-1 degrees of visual angle. This system can enable applications with infants that, otherwise, would not be possible with existing POG estimation methods, which typically require multiple-point calibration procedures.
Conference proceedings: ... Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Conference 02/2007; 2007:4556-60. DOI:10.1109/IEMBS.2007.4353353
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: In order to provide a reliable measure of the similarity of uppercase English letters, a confusion matrix based on 1,200 presentations
of each letter was established. To facilitate an analysis of the perceived structural characteristics, the confusion matrix
was decomposed according to Luce’s choice model into a symmetrical similarity matrix and a response bias vector. The underlying
structure of the similarity matrix was assessed with both a hierarchical clustering and a multidimensional scaling procedure.
This data is offered to investigators of visual information processing as a valuable tool for controlling not only the overall
similarity of the letters in a study, but also their similarity on individual feature dimensions.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.