Abstract
Objective:Four experiments were conducted in order to assess the effectiveness of dynamic vibrotactile collision-warning signals in potentially enhancing safe driving.Background:Auditory neuroscience research has demonstrated that auditory signals that move toward a person are more salient than those that move away. If this looming effect were found to extend to the tactile modality, then it could be utilized in the context of in-car warning signal design.Method:The effectiveness of various vibrotactile warning signals was assessed using a simulated car-following task. The vibrotactile warning signals consisted of dynamic toward-/away-from-torso cues (Experiment 1), dynamic versus static vibrotactile cues (Experiment 2), looming-intensity- and constant-intensity-toward-torso cues (Experiment 3), and static cues presented on the hands or on the waist, having either a low or high vibration intensity (Experiment 4).Results:Braking reaction times (BRTs) were significantly faster for toward-torso as compared to away-from-torso cues (Experiments 1 and 2) and static cues (Experiment 2). This difference could not have been attributed to differential responses to signals delivered to different body parts (i.e., the waist vs. hands; Experiment 4). Embedding a looming-intensity signal into the toward-torso signal did not result in any additional BRT benefits (Experiment 3).Conclusion:Dynamic vibrotactile cues that feel as though they are approaching the torso can be used to communicate information concerning external events, resulting in a significantly faster reaction time to potential collisions.Application:Dynamic vibrotactile warning signals that move toward the body offer great potential for the design of future in-car collision-warning system.
Highlights
In the past few years, there has been a great deal of interest in the development of assistance systems, in particular, nonvisual and multisensory collision-warning systems for drivers (e.g., Fitch, Kiefer, Hankey, & Kleiner, 2007; Ho, Reed, & Spence, 2006; Lee, McGehee, Brown, & Marshall, 2006; Mohebbi, Gray, & Tan, 2009; Spence, 2012; Spence & Ho, 2008a, 2008b)
The Braking reaction times (BRTs) data when the participant’s head was turned left and right were combined because an initial repeated-measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed there to be no significant difference between these two conditions, F(1, 15) < 1, p =
A repeated-measure ANOVA was performed on the BRT data in order to determine whether the presentation of the different types of vibrotactile warning signals facilitated participants’ collision avoidance responses
Summary
In the past few years, there has been a great deal of interest in the development of assistance systems, in particular, nonvisual and multisensory collision-warning systems for drivers (e.g., Fitch, Kiefer, Hankey, & Kleiner, 2007; Ho, Reed, & Spence, 2006; Lee, McGehee, Brown, & Marshall, 2006; Mohebbi, Gray, & Tan, 2009; Spence, 2012; Spence & Ho, 2008a, 2008b). Some auditory warning signals may be confused with background noise under everyday driving conditions (see Beruscha, Augsburg, & Manstetten, 2011; COMSIS, 1996; McKeown & Isherwood, 2007; Ramsey & Simmons, 1993). They may perhaps be interfered with by other auditory tasks, such as talking to a passenger. Auditory neuroscience research has demonstrated that auditory signals that move toward a person are more salient than those that move away If this looming effect were found to extend to the tactile modality, it could be utilized in the context of in-car warning signal design
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
