Multisensory In-Car Warning Signals for Collision Avoidance

Abstract

Objective: A driving simulator study was conducted in order to assess the relative utility of unimodal auditory, unimodal vibrotactile, and combined audiotactile (i.e., multisensory) in-car warning signals to alert and inform drivers of likely front-to-rear-end collision events in a situation modeled on real-world driving. Background: The implementation of nonvisual in-car warning signals may have important safety implications in lessening any visual overload during driving. Multisensory integration can provide synergistic facilitation effects. Method: The participants drove along a rural road in a car-following scenario in either the presence or absence of a radio program in the background. The brake light signals of the lead vehicle were also unpredictably either enabled or disabled on a trial-by-trial basis. Results: The results showed that the participants initiated their braking responses significantly more rapidly following the presentation of audiotactile warning signals than following the presentation of either unimodal auditory or unimodal vibrotactile warning signals. Conclusion: Multisensory warning signals offer a particularly effective means of capturing driver attention in demanding situations such as driving. Application: The potential value of such multisensory in-car warning signals is explained with reference to recent cognitive neuroscience research.

Effectiveness of Bimodal Versus Unimodal Alerts for Distracted Drivers

“…While both unimodal and bimodal alerts are capable of attracting attention in undistracted conditions, bimodal alerts show increased benefit during tasks that induce high perceptual load (Botta et al, 2011;Chan & Chan, 2006;Ho, Reed, & Spence, 2007;Ho, Santangelo, & Spence, 2009;Santangelo & Spence, 2007). For example, Santangelo and Spence (2007) found that when participants were engaged in a perceptually demanding central rapid serial visual presentation task, bimodal cues aided detection of peripheral visual targets more than unimodal signals.…”

Informative Collision Warnings: Effect of Modality and Driver Age

“…The lead vehicle's brake lights were deactivated. This was a similar scenario to those used in previous studies (e.g., Ho, Reed & Spence, 2007).…”

“…Therefore, it is interesting to ask whether there will be similar age effects for informative collision warning signals. The second aim of the present study was to investigate whether multisensory informative warnings produce any additional BRT benefits relative to unimodal warnings, as have been shown in the case of non-informative warnings (e.g., Ho, Reed & Spence, 2007).…”

Improving Usefulness of Automated Driving by Lowering Primary Task Interference through HMI Design

“…Visual-auditory HMIs have traditionally been used in the design of warnings as the multimodal presentation of warning signals usually speeds up the cognitive processes involved in the selection and execution of an appropriate response, such as braking or steering [46,47]. The advantageous effect of presenting more than one stimulus at once that Journal of Advanced Transportation requires a reaction, the so-called redundancy gain, has been demonstrated repeatedly in cognitive psychology research [48,49].…”