Abstract
AbstractDriving at an inappropriate speed is a major accident cause in the EU. Understanding the underlying sensory mechanisms can help to reduce speed and increase traffic safety. The present study investigated the effect of visuospatial stimuli on speed perception using an adaptive countermeasure to speeding based on a manipulation of optic flow. We added red lights on both sides of a simulated road. We expected speed to be perceived as faster when lights moved toward drivers due to increased optic flow, whereas we expected static light stimuli to not alter the optic flow and thus not influence speed perception. Two experiments applied the method of constant stimuli. To this end, participants encountered several trials of two video sequences on a straight road. A reference sequence showed the same traveling speed while test sequences varied around different traveling speeds. Participants indicated which sequence they perceived as faster, leading to the calculation of the point of subjective equality (PSE). A lower PSE indicates that the speed in this experimental condition is perceived as faster than in another experimental condition. Experiment 1A did not show a difference between PSEs of static and oncoming lights. Because participants had counted reflector posts for speed estimation, we removed these reflector posts in Experiment 1B and found a lower PSE for oncoming lights. Thus, such light stimuli may have an effect only in situations without other competing visual stimuli supporting speed perception. Future research should investigate whether speed perception is indeed a primarily visuospatial control task or whether other sensory information such as auditory factors can have an influence as well.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Cognitive Neuroscience,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Reference58 articles.
1. Aschersleben, G., & Bertelson, P. (2003). Temporal ventriloquism: Crossmodal interaction on the time dimension. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 50, 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8760(03)00131-4
2. Bärgman, J., Smith, K., & Werneke, J. (2015). Quantifying drivers’ comfort-zone and dread-zone boundaries in left turn across path/opposite direction (LTAP/OD) scenarios. Transportation Research Part f: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 35, 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.10.003
3. Becker-Carus, C., & Wendt, M. (2017). Allgemeine Psychologie: Eine Einführung (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53006-1
4. Bergh Alvergren, V., Karlsson, M. A., Wallgren, P., Op Den Camp, O. M. G. C., & Nabvii Niavi, M. (2019). Specification of nudges (Deliverable 3.1). https://www.mebesafe.eu/deliverables/
5. Bridges, D., Pitiot, A., MacAskill, M. R., & Peirce, J. W. (2020). The timing mega-study: Comparing a range of experiment generators, both lab-based and online. PeerJ, 8, e9414. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9414