Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/1942/22582
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | BIESBROUCK, Mathijs | - |
dc.contributor.author | MOLLU, Kristof | - |
dc.contributor.author | Ferson, N. | - |
dc.contributor.author | BRIJS, Tom | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-11-10T09:35:10Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-11-10T09:35:10Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2016 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | HFES Europe Chapter 2016 (Human Factors and Ergonomics Society) - Human Factors and User Needs in Transport, Control, and the Workplace, Prague, Czech Republic, 26-28 October 2016 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1942/22582 | - |
dc.description.abstract | This study investigates the effect of the timing of a Pedestrian Forward Collision Warning (PFCW) on the reaction time of the driver and the acceptance rate. Forty-eight participants participated in the driving simulator experiment which was divided into two parts: a reaction part where reaction time was tested (between-subjects design) and an acceptance part where the acceptance of the system was assessed (within-subjects design). Seven conditions were tested: distracted drivers (warning at 3.5 seconds, 2.5 seconds, 1.5 seconds, no warning, and false warning) and focused drivers (warning at 2.5 seconds, and false warning). The warning was both audible and visual. The focused driver scenario with the 2.5 seconds warning signal showed a significant lower reaction time compared to the other scenarios. The acceptance of the different scenarios contained a usefulness scale and a satisfying scale similar to the one used by Van der Laan, Heino, & de Waard (1997). Early and mid-time warning signals showed a significant difference on both scales compared to the false warning and the late warning scenarios. Based on these results, we conclude that the timing of the warning signal has an influence on the acceptance rate. Conclusions regarding the reaction time need more data to be conclusive. | - |
dc.language.iso | en | - |
dc.title | What is the effect of the timing of a Pedestrian Forward Collision Warning (PFCW) on the reaction time of the driver and the acceptance rate? | - |
dc.type | Conference Material | - |
local.bibliographicCitation.conferencedate | 2016, October 26-28 | - |
local.bibliographicCitation.conferencename | HFES Europe Chapter 2016 (Human Factors and Ergonomics Society) - Human Factors and User Needs in Transport, Control, and the Workplace | - |
local.bibliographicCitation.conferenceplace | Prague, Czech Republic | - |
local.bibliographicCitation.jcat | C2 | - |
local.type.refereed | Non-Refereed | - |
local.type.specified | Conference Presentation | - |
item.fullcitation | BIESBROUCK, Mathijs; MOLLU, Kristof; Ferson, N. & BRIJS, Tom (2016) What is the effect of the timing of a Pedestrian Forward Collision Warning (PFCW) on the reaction time of the driver and the acceptance rate?. In: HFES Europe Chapter 2016 (Human Factors and Ergonomics Society) - Human Factors and User Needs in Transport, Control, and the Workplace, Prague, Czech Republic, 26-28 October 2016. | - |
item.accessRights | Open Access | - |
item.fulltext | With Fulltext | - |
item.contributor | BIESBROUCK, Mathijs | - |
item.contributor | MOLLU, Kristof | - |
item.contributor | Ferson, N. | - |
item.contributor | BRIJS, Tom | - |
Appears in Collections: | Research publications |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Biesbrouck et al_2016.docx | Conference material | 22.96 kB | Microsoft Word | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.