Accumulation of continuously time-varying sensory evidence constrains neural and behavioral responses in human collision threat detection

Markkula, Gustav; Uludağ, Zeynep; Wilkie, Richard M.; Billington, Jac

doi:10.31234/osf.io/ca3h9

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the effect of cell phone conversation on the looming threshold for an immediate hazard but not on the looming threshold for closing suggests that the two judgments rely on different underlying mechanisms. The underlying mechanism for the looming threshold for an immediate hazard may rely on an evidence accumulation process (Markkula et al, 2016, 2020), whereas the looming threshold for closing may rely on a discrete looming threshold. Regardless, it appears that the degradation in driving performance that occurs when drivers engage in a cell phone conversation is due to an effect on the looming threshold for an immediate hazard but not due to effects on the looming threshold for closing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors That Affect Drivers’ Perception of Closing and an Immediate Hazard

Weaver

DeLucia

Jupe³

2021

Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To measure the looming threshold for when drivers perceive closing and an immediate hazard and determine what factors affect these thresholds. Background Rear-end collisions are a common type of crash. One key issue is determining when drivers first perceive they need to react. The looming threshold for closing and an immediate hazard are critical perceptual thresholds that reflect when drivers perceive they need to react. Method Two driving simulator experiments examined whether engaging in a cell phone conversation and whether the complexity of the roadway environment affect these thresholds for the perception of closing and immediate hazard. Half of the participants engaged in a cognitive task, the last letter task, to emulate a cell phone conversation, and all participants experienced both simple and complex roadway environments. Results Drivers perceived an immediate hazard later when engaged in a cell phone conversation than when not engaged in a conversation but only when the driving task was relatively less demanding (e.g., simple roadway, slow closing velocity). Compared to simple scenes, drivers perceived closing and an immediate hazard later for complex scenes but only when closing velocity was 30 mph (48.28 km/h) or greater. Conclusion Cell phone conversation can affect when drivers perceive an immediate hazard when the roadway is less demanding. Roadway complexity can affect when drivers perceive closing and an immediate hazard when closing velocity is high. Application Results can aid accident analysis cases and the design of driving automation systems by suggesting when a typical driver would respond.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors That Affect Drivers’ Perception of Closing and an Immediate Hazard

Weaver

DeLucia

Jupe³

2021

Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note that for Accumulator framework responses, the shaded portion under the lines are equal in area. Hence this explains why under an Accumulator framework, responses would occur at larger when ̇ is higher (Markkula, Uludag, Wilkie, & Billington, 2020). This characteristic could explain findings where humans do not always respond to a fixed error signal when initiating sensorimotor actions: e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Steering is initiated based on error accumulation

Cm¹,

Mole²,

Markkula³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vehicle control by humans is possible because the central nervous system is capable of using visual information to produce complex sensorimotor actions. Drivers must monitor errors and initiate steering corrections of appropriate magnitude and timing to maintain a safe lane position. The perceptual mechanisms determining how a driver processes visual information and initiates steering corrections remain unclear. Previous research suggests two potential alternative mechanisms for responding to errors: (i) perceptual evidence (error) satisficing fixed constant thresholds (Threshold), or (ii) the integration of perceptual evidence over time (Accumulator). To distinguish between these mechanisms an experiment was conducted using a computer-generated steering correction paradigm. Drivers (N=20) steered towards an intermittently appearing ‘road-line’ that varied in position and orientation with respect to the driver’s position and trajectory. One key prediction from a Threshold framework is a fixed absolute error response across conditions regardless of the rate of error development, whereas the Accumulator framework predicts that drivers would respond to larger absolute errors when the error signal develops at a faster rate. Results were consistent with an Accumulator framework, thus we propose that models of steering should integrate perceived control error over time in order to accurately capture human perceptual performance.

show abstract

“…Moreover, the evidence accumulation model also assumes a constant drift rate and a nonchanging threshold. The more recent implementation of these models has explored variable drift rates and collapsing thresholds which are more representative of some driving situations (Markkula et al, 2021). Another assumption that will be revisited in future work concerns how the drift rate depends on attention.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accumulating Distrust: A Dynamic Model of Automation Disuse

Kamaraj

Lee

2022

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human-automation driving style similarity may be a source of trust that influences drivers’ automation use decisions. This is generally examined in scenarios where the driver is attentive to the automation. However, future automation may not require driver attention. Thus, driving style similarity must be revisited as various levels of attention may affect how drivers accumulate evidence of driving style similarity. A model that considers two levels of driver attention (attentive and non-attentive) in the drivers’ evidence accumulation process is proposed. Dissimilarity is used as the evidence that contributes to driver distrust leading to automation disuse. A 2 (conservative and aggressive automation) × 2 (attentive and non-attentive driver) simulation of car following is examined where the driver is assumed to behave conservatively. Simulation results indicated no significant effect of driving styles on disuse, but inattentiveness mitigates disuse. These simulations may inform future empirical studies.

show abstract

Accumulation of continuously time-varying sensory evidence constrains neural and behavioral responses in human collision threat detection

Cited by 4 publications

References 59 publications

Factors That Affect Drivers’ Perception of Closing and an Immediate Hazard

Factors That Affect Drivers’ Perception of Closing and an Immediate Hazard

Steering is initiated based on error accumulation

Accumulating Distrust: A Dynamic Model of Automation Disuse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About