Children's attentional skills and road behavior.

Dunbar, George; Hill, Roslyn; Lewis, Vicky

doi:10.1037/1076-898x.7.3.227

Cited by 57 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, testing children requires special consideration, and experimental tasks must be specially designed to suit younger minds, most often by having them play games. There are many quite sophisticated examples of gamelike experiments for children, including "Dragon Master" (Metcalfe, Kornell, & Finn, 2009), "Frog Game" (Dunbar, Hill, & Lewis, 2001), and spaceships (Spencer & Hund, 2002, 2003; for more examples, see Berger, Jones, Rothbart, & Posner, 2000;Droit-Volet, Tourret, & Wearden, 2004;Kujala, Richardson, & Lyytinen, 2010;Ploog, Banerjee, & Brooks, 2009;Stevenson, Sundqvist, & Mahmut, 2007;Yildirim, Narayanan, & Potamianos, 2011). Other researchers working with children have simply presented an unaltered experimental task to the child as if it were a game.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gamelike features might not improve data

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many psychological experiments require participants to complete lots of trials in a monotonous task, which often induces boredom. An increasingly popular approach to alleviate such boredom is to incorporate gamelike features into standard experimental tasks. Games are assumed to be interesting and, hence, motivating, and better motivated participants might produce better data (with fewer lapses in attention and greater accuracy). Despite its apparent prevalence, the assumption that gamelike features improve data is almost completely untested. We test this assumption by presenting a choice task and a change detection task in both gamelike and standard forms. Response latency, accuracy, and overall task performance were unchanged by gamelike features in both experiments. We present a novel cognitive model for the choice task, based on particle filtering, to decorrelate the dependent variables and measure performance in a more psychologically meaningful manner. The model-based analyses are consistent with the hypothesis that gamelike features did not alter cognition. A postexperimental questionnaire indicated that the gamelike version provided a more positive and enjoyable experience for participants than the standard task, even though this subjective experience did not translate into data effects. Although our results hold only for the two experiments examined, the gamelike features we incorporated into both tasks were typical of-and at least as salient and interesting as those usually used by-experimental psychologists. Our results suggest that modifying an experiment to include gamelike features, while leaving the basic task unchanged, may not improve the quality of the data collected, but it may provide participants with a better experimental experience.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gamelike features might not improve data

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This score has been used extensively ever since in research because of the advantage of having a single index that combines RL and error (Buela-Casal, Carretero-Dios, De los Santos-Roig, & Bermúdez, 2003;Dunber, Hill, & Lewis, 2001;Kenny, 2005;Morgan, 1998;Overton, Byrnes, & O'Brien, 1985;Servera & Llabrés, 2000;Waring, Farthing, & Kidder-Ashley, 1999). The Zi score is calculated by subtracting the standardized score of the mean RL from the standardized score of the number of errors committed (Zi = Z e -Z RL ) .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Impulsivity-Reflexivity when Testing Dynamic Spatial Ability: Sex and g Differences

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

) was administered as a measure of general intelligence. Impulsivity scores (Zi) of Salkind and Wright (1977) were used to analyze reflexivity-impulsivity and SATO. The results obtained indicate that (a) four performance groups can be identified: Fast-accurate, Slowinaccurate, Impulsive, and Reflexive. The first two groups solve the task as a function of a competence variable and the last two as a function of a personality variable; (b) performance differences should be attributed to SATO; (c) SATO differs depending on sex and intelligence level. Keywords: dynamic spatial tasks, reflexivity-impulsivity, speed-accuracy tradeoff, sex differences, intelligenceEl trabajo analiza la posibilidad de que las diferencias en la ejecución de varones y mujeres en tareas espaciales dinámicas como el Spatial Orientation Dynamic Test-Revised (SODT-R Santacreu y Rubio, 1998), obtenidas en trabajos previos, se deban al estilo cognitivo (Reflexividad-Impulsividad) o al balance velocidad-exactitud; (Speed-Accuracy Trade-Off, SATO) que los participantes pongan en marcha. De deberse al estilo cognitivo serían independientes de la inteligencia mientras que si se deben al balance Velocidad-Exactitud pueden estar asociadas a la inteligencia. Se evaluó a 1652 participantes, 984 varones y 668 mujeres, de edades comprendidas entre 18 y 55 años. Además del SODT-R se administró el Test de Razonamiento Analítico, Secuencial e Inductivo (TRASI; Rubio y Santacreu, 2003) como medida de inteligencia general. Para el análisis de la Reflexividad-Impulsividad (R-I) y el balance velocidad-exactitud se utilizaron las puntuaciones de impulsividad (Zi) de Salkind y Wright (1977). Los resultados obtenidos indican que: a/ se pueden identificar cuatro grupos de ejecución: Rápidos-exactos, Lentos inexactos, Impulsivos y Reflexivos. Los dos primeros resuelven la tarea en función de una variable competencial y los dos últimos en función de una variable de personalidad; b/ las diferencias en la ejecución deben atribuirse al balance VE; c/ este balance es diferente según el sexo y el nivel de inteligencia. Palabras clave: tareas espaciales dinámicas, reflexividad-impulsividad, balance velocidad-exactitud, diferencias entre sexos, inteligencia

show abstract

“…In a study of attentional skills of 4-to 10-year-old children, older age was associated with better ability to appropriately switch focus to important pedestrian tasks. 28 This ability, which correlated with more awareness of traffic and better observed pedestrian behavior, continued to improve through the entire 5-to 9-year age range.…”

Section: The Child Developmentmentioning

confidence: 93%

Pedestrian Safety

Prevention¹

2009

Pediatrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Each year, approximately 900 pediatric pedestrians younger than 19 years are killed. In addition, 51000 children are injured as pedestrians, and 5300 of them are hospitalized because of their injuries. Parents should be warned that young children often do not have the cognitive, perceptual, and behavioral abilities to negotiate traffic independently. Parents should also be informed about the danger of vehicle back-over injuries to toddlers playing in driveways. Because posttraumatic stress syndrome commonly follows even minor pedestrian injury, pediatricians should screen and refer for this condition as necessary. The American Academy of Pediatrics supports community- and school-based strategies that minimize a child's exposure to traffic, especially to high-speed, high-volume traffic. Furthermore, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports governmental and industry action that would lead to improvements in vehicle design, driver manuals, driver education, and data collection for the purpose of reducing pediatric pedestrian injury.

show abstract

Children's attentional skills and road behavior.

Cited by 57 publications

References 29 publications

Gamelike features might not improve data

Gamelike features might not improve data

Influence of Impulsivity-Reflexivity when Testing Dynamic Spatial Ability: Sex and g Differences

Pedestrian Safety

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About