Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Scott, J.J.
Right arrow Articles by Gray, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Scott, J.J.
Right arrow Articles by Gray, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

A Comparison of Tactile, Visual, and Auditory Warnings for Rear-End Collision Prevention in Simulated Driving

J.J. Scott

United States Air Force, Edwards Air Force Base, California, jeffrey.scott{at}edwards.af.mil

Robert Gray

Arizona State University, Mesa, Arizona

Objective: This study examined the effectiveness of rear-end collision warnings presented in different sensory modalities as a function of warning timing in a driving simulator. Background: The proliferation of in-vehicle information and entertainment systems threatens driver attention and may increase the risk of rear-end collisions. Collision warning systems have been shown to improve inattentive and/or distracted driver response time (RT) in rear-end collision situations. However, most previous rear-end collision warning research has not directly compared auditory, visual, and tactile warnings. Method: Sixteen participants in a fixed-base driving simulator experienced four warning conditions: no warning, visual, auditory, and tactile. The warnings activated when the time-to-collision (TTC) reached a critical threshold of 3.0 or 5.0 s. Driver RT was captured from a warning below critical threshold to brake initiation. Results: Drivers with a tactile warning had the shortest mean RT. Drivers with a tactile warning had significantly shorter RT than drivers without a warning and had a significant advantage over drivers with visual warnings. Conclusion: Tactile warnings show promise as effective rear-end collision warnings. Application: The results of this study can be applied to the future design and evaluation of automotive warnings designed to reduce rear-end collisions.

Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 50, No. 2, 264-275 (2008)
DOI: 10.1518/001872008X250674
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics SocietyHome page
C. Ho and C. Spence
Using Peripersonal Warning Signals to Orient a Driver's Gaze
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, August 1, 2009; 51(4): 539 - 556.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics SocietyHome page
R. Mohebbi, R. Gray, and H. Z. Tan
Driver Reaction Time to Tactile and Auditory Rear-End Collision Warnings While Talking on a Cell Phone
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, February 1, 2009; 51(1): 102 - 110.
[Abstract] [PDF]