Errors in young children's decisions about traffic gaps: Experiments with roadside simulations

Abstract

This version is available at https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/18687/ Strathprints is designed to allow users to access the research output of the University of Strathclyde. Unless otherwise explicitly stated on the manuscript, Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Please check the manuscript for details of any other licences that may have been applied. You may not engage in further distribution of the material for any profitmaking activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute both the url (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/) and the content of this paper for research or private study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge.Any correspondence concerning this service should be sent to the Strathprints administrator: strathprints@strath.ac.ukThe Strathprints institutional repository (https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk) is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde research outputs. It has been developed to disseminate open access research outputs, expose data about those outputs, and enable the management and persistent access to Strathclyde's intellectual output.

Influence of Virtual Reality Training on the Roadside Crossing Judgments of Child Pedestrians.

“…By using the "pretend road" method (in which children observed traffic on a real road but crossed an adjacent "pretend" one), Lee et al (1984) estimated that only 9% of children's crossings could be considered tight fits, which compared favorably with the 7% made by adults. Studies that have used comparable roadside methodologies have reported similar rates (e.g., Demetre et al, 1992;Demetre et al, 1993;Young & Lee, 1987). Indeed, far from finding a bias toward hazardous decision making, these studies all report a bias in the opposite direction, with children missing many perfectly safe opportunities to cross.…”

The relevance of action in perceiving affordances: Perception of catchableness of fly balls.

“…Such affordances can be found, for example, in traffic situations such as crossing a busy street, where not only the to-be-crossed distance is important but also the time mat is available for covering this distance safely (Demetre et al, 1992;Lee, Young, & McLaughlin, 1984;Young & Lee, 1987). Whether a traffic situation affords safe stopping by braking, as discussed by Lee (1976) and Stewart, Cudworth, and Lishman (1993), provides another example of such an affordance.…”

Road-Crossing Safety in Virtual Reality: A Comparison of Adolescents With and Without ADHD

“…Past research has included the use of the pretend road task, which Road Crossing and ADHD 5 asks participant to demonstrate their normal road crossing behaviors on a constructed road within a laboratory environment (Lee, Young & McLaughlin, 1984). Other experimental paradigms have utilised the shout and two-step tasks, in which a participant stands on the curbside and indicates, either by shouting or taking two steps forward, whether they would make a road crossing under the instructions of the experimenter (Demetre et al, 1992); and observational studies of participants in actual road crossing situations (Oudejans, Michaels, van Dort & Frissen, 1996). Although the information obtained from such studies has informed our knowledge of risky pedestrian behaviors, these naturalistic tasks have inherent limitations in the type of sensory information that can be provided to participants, thereby restricting their cognitive and behavioral responses to the situation because of the physical dangers involved when crossing an actual road.…”