Citation

Melman T, Abbink DA, van Paassen MM, Boer ER, de Winter JCF. Ergonomics 2018; 61(7): 966-987.

Affiliation

Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering , Delft University of Technology , Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD , Delft , the Netherlands.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/00140139.2018.1426790

PMID

29319468

Abstract

We conceptually replicated three highly cited experiments on speed adaptation, by measuring drivers' experienced risk (galvanic skin response; GSR), experienced task difficulty (self-reported task effort; SRTE), and safety margins (time-to-line-crossing; TLC) in a single experiment. The three measures were compared using a nonparametric index that captures the criteria of constancy during self-paced driving and sensitivity during forced-paced driving. In a driving simulator, 24 participants completed two forced-paced and one self-paced run. Each run held four different lane width conditions.

RESULTS showed that participants drove faster on wider lanes, thus confirming the expected speed adaptation. None of the three measures offered persuasive evidence for speed adaptation because they failed either the sensitivity criterion (GSR) or the constancy criterion (TLC, SRTE). An additional measure, steering reversal rate, outperformed the other three measures regarding sensitivity and constancy, prompting a further evaluation of the role of control activity in speed adaptation. Practitioner Summary Results from a driving simulator experiment suggest that it is not experienced risk, experienced effort, or safety margins that govern drivers' choice of speed. Rather, our findings suggest that steering reversal rate has an explanatory role in speed adaptation.

Language: en

Keywords

Behavioural adaptation; driving simulator; psychophysiology; risk homeostasis; safety margins