1 / 43

Evaluation of a Simulator Based, Novice Driver Risk Awareness Training Program

Evaluation of a Simulator Based, Novice Driver Risk Awareness Training Program. A Master Thesis Presented by Frank Diete, M.S. IEOR. 27th September, 2007. Committee: Prof. Donald Fisher, Prof. John Collura, Prof. Sundar Krishnamurty. Outline. Review of Motivation. Experimental Design

fmayton
Download Presentation

Evaluation of a Simulator Based, Novice Driver Risk Awareness Training Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation of a Simulator Based, Novice Driver Risk Awareness Training Program A Master Thesis Presented by Frank Diete, M.S. IEOR • 27th September, 2007 Committee: Prof. Donald Fisher, Prof. John Collura, Prof. Sundar Krishnamurty

  2. Outline • Review of Motivation • Experimental Design • Training Experimental Group • Training Control Group • Simulator Evaluation • Scoring and Results • Training Results • HPL Simulator Results • Conclusion

  3. Background and Motivation Young, novice drivers are overrepresented in car crashes (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (2006). Fatality Facts 2005: Older people. Retrieved July 6, 2007, from http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/olderpeople.html#sec0)

  4. Field Studies Pradhan et al. (2005)* Police Accidents Reports (Mc Knight & Mc Knight, 2003) Eye Tracking Data - Scanning Patterns (Mourant and Rockwell (1972), Crundall & Underwood (1998)) Failures in Selective Attention Novice drivers do not show an appropriate tactical scanning behavior The reasons are failures in search Simulator Study (Pradhan et al. (2005)*) *Pradhan, A.K., Hammel, K.R., DeRamus, R., Pollatsek, A., Noyce, D.A., & Fisher, D.L. (2005). The Use of Eye Movements to Evaluate the Effects of Driver Age on Risk Perception in an Advanced Driving Simulator. Human Factors, 47, 840-852.

  5. Risk Awareness and Perception Training (RAPT) RAPT-1 was developed and evaluated on the HPL driving simulator by Pollatsek et al. (2006)* • RAPT does … • … train novice drivers where to look • RAPT does not … • … train manual skills • … train time sharing skills After training 90% of critical areas in plan views could be identified by participants. *Pollatsek, A., Narayanaan, V., Pradhan, A., & Fisher, D.L. (2006b). The use of eye movements to evaluate the effect of PC-based risk awareness training on an advanced driving simulator. Human Factors, 48, 447–464.

  6. 22.3% 20.0% 24.6% Simulator Evaluation Results Total Effect of Training (57.7% vs. 35.4%) Near Transfer Scenarios (51.9% vs. 27.3%) Far Transfer Scenarios (63.5% vs. 43.5%) What explains this big difference in performance? • Difficulty to generalize from plan views to a • perspective view as seen on the driving simulator Pollatsek et al., 2006* 2) Necessity of practicing hazard anticipation at the same time as driving  Multitasking does not occur automatically! Although 90% of risky areas could be identified in the training, only 52% of these areas were fixated in the evaluation! *Pollatsek, A., Narayanaan, V., Pradhan, A., & Fisher, D.L. (2006b). The use of eye movements to evaluate the effect of PC-based risk awareness training on an advanced driving simulator. Human Factors, 48, 447–464.

  7. Link to proposed study RAPT* SIMRAPT Better Hazard Anticipation? A training program using both RAPT and the Drive Square simulator might result in better training effects. + = *Pollatsek, A., Narayanaan, V., Pradhan, A., & Fisher, D.L. (2006b). The use of eye movements to evaluate the effect of PC-based risk awareness training on an advanced driving simulator. Human Factors, 48, 447–464.

  8. Experiment Research Hypotheses • Hypothesis 1: A training program using a combination of plan views (RAPT) and a head mounted driving simulator (SIMRAPT) will result in trained participants recognizing risks significantly more often on the HPL driving simulator than untrained novice drivers. The effects of training will generalize from the combined RAPT and SIMRAPT training program to scenarios on the HPL driving simulator that measure both the near and far transfer of the ability to recognize risks. • Hypothesis 2: The difference in performance between trained and untrained novice drivers using the combined RAPT/SIMRAPT training program will be larger than in past studies which used only the RAPT training program where performance in this and previous studies was evaluated on the HPL driving simulator using the same scenarios.

  9. Outline • Review of Motivation • Experimental Design • Training Experimental Group • Training Control Group • Simulator Evaluation • Scoring and Results • Training Results • HPL Simulator Results • Conclusion

  10. Experiment Design The effects of the training were evaluated by comparing simulator performance of a trained experimental and an pseudo-trained control group Participants • 16 or 17 years old • Less than 6 month driving experience Experimental Group Control Group (12 participants) (12 participants) RAPT-1 Mass RMV SIMRAPT Pseudo-SIMRAPT Compare HPL Simulator Evaluation HPL Simulator Evaluation

  11. Participants Experimental Group Control Group 10 permit drivers 2 license drivers 10 permit drivers 2 license drivers 7 male 5 female 7 male 5 female Average Age: 16.5 years STDV: 0.4 years Average Age: 16.5 years STDV: 0.5 years

  12. Experiment Design The effects of the training were evaluated by comparing simulator performance of a trained experimental and an pseudo-trained control group Participants • 16 or 17 years old • Less than 6 month driving experience Experimental Group Control Group (12 participants) (12 participants) RAPT-1 Mass RMV SIMRAPT Pseudo-SIMRAPT Compare HPL Simulator Evaluation HPL Simulator Evaluation

  13. The slides for the RAPT PowerPoint were developed by Anuj Pradhan for prior studies. Training Program: Experimental Group RAPT Instructions Pre-Test / Training on 8 scenarios SIMRAPT Post-Test

  14. yes no Training Program: Experimental Group RAPT Driver feels comfortable Practice Drive no yes Drive 1st scenario Written Instructions SIMRAPT Present plan view And feedback Drive next scenario no All scenarios driven? Correct head-turn done? yes End training Repeat scenario

  15. Experiment Design The effects of the training were evaluated by comparing simulator performance of a trained experimental and an pseudo-trained control group Participants • 16 or 17 years old • Less than 6 month driving experience Experimental Group Control Group (12 participants) (12 participants) RAPT-1 Mass RMV SIMRAPT Pseudo-SIMRAPT Compare HPL Simulator Evaluation HPL Simulator Evaluation

  16. Training Program: Control Group Mass RMV Training Drive Square Simulator  Nothing related to hazard anticipation

  17. Training Program: Control Group Mass RMV Training Driver feels comfortable Practice Drive yes no Drive all 8 scenarios one after another Written Instructions Drive Square Simulator No feedback given Drive all 8 scenarios again in another order End training

  18. Experiment Design The effects of the training will be evaluated by comparing simulator performance of a trained experimental and an pseudo-trained control group Participants • 16 or 17 years old • Less than 6 month driving experience Experimental Group Control Group (12 participants) (12 participants) RAPT-1 Mass RMV SIMRAPT Pseudo-SIMRAPT Compare HPL Simulator Evaluation HPL Simulator Evaluation

  19. HPL simulator evaluation Both the experimental and the control group were evaluated on the HPL driving simulator • Evaluation immediatly after the training • Instructions  „obey traffic laws etc.“… • Calibration of the eye-tracker • Participants are asked to follow a lead vehicle • Practice Drive • 16 Scenarios in four blocks  8 near and 8 far transfer scenarios* *The scenarios for the simulator evaluation had been developed by Anuj Pradhan at the Human Performance Lab for prior studies.

  20. The study in a movie

  21. Outline • Review of Motivation • Experimental Design • Training Experimental Group • Training Control Group • Simulator Evaluation • Scoring and Results • Training Results • HPL Simulator Results • Conclusion

  22. Results RAPT Training

  23. SIMRAPT Results – Experimental Group Sequences of scenarios in SIMRAPT: 1st participant: 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 2nd participant: 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 – 1 3rd participant: 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 – 1 – 2 ….. Scoring in SIMRAPT: • 0, 0.5 or 1 point for each scenario and drive • Number of trials counted for each scenario and drive

  24. SIMRAPT Results – Experimental Group 2.58 79% 1.33 0% Average Score first trial Average number of trials

  25. SIMRAPT Results – Experimental Group Average Score first trial Average number of trials

  26. Drive Square Results – Control Group Average Score 1st and 2nd run by scenario. Slight improvement from 8.9% to 14.1%, but not significant (t=1.93, p>.05)

  27. Conclusion of training results • High and significant training effect for the experimental group from the 1st to the 8th drive on SIMRAPT  Generalization within training • Tendency of small training effect for control group from 1st to 2nd run on Drive Square

  28. Outline • Review of Motivation • Experimental Design • Training Experimental Group • Training Control Group • Simulator Evaluation • Scoring and Results • Training Results • HPL Simulator Results • Conclusion

  29. HPL Simulator Evaluation - Scoring Each scenario* was scored 1 or 0 depending on eye fixation behavior! *The scenarios for the simulator evaluation had been developed by Anuj Pradhan at the Human Performance Lab for prior studies.

  30. Near Transfer – Opposing Truck Left Turn scenario Risk Recognized Risk Not Recognized *The scenarios for the HPL driving simulator that are used for this study and the slides for the Power Point Training had been developed by Anuj Pradhan at the Human Performance Lab within the last years.

  31. Far Transfer – Mullins Center scenario Risk Recognized Risk Not Recognized *The scenarios for the HPL driving simulator that are used for this study and the slides for the Power Point Training had been developed by Anuj Pradhan at the Human Performance Lab within the last years.

  32. Results for simulator evaluation Test of Hypothesis 1: Significant training effect of combined training program? All 16 scenarios included in evaluation!

  33. Results for simulator evaluation

  34. Results for simulator evaluation  Pretty consant training effect for all near transfer scenarios  Generalization only for particular far transfer scenarios

  35. Results for simulator evaluation

  36. Results for simulator evaluation Test of Hypothesis 2: Training effect of combined training program higher than for just PC-based training as in Pollatsek et al. (2006)? 11 scenarios included in evaluation!

  37. Results for simulator evaluation The non-published variances and means for the RAPT-1 evaluation are based on former work at the Human Performance Lab and were provided for use in this study by Anuj Pradhan, graduate student at UMASS Amherst.

  38. Results for simulator evaluation The non-published variances and means for the RAPT-1 evaluation are based on former work at the Human Performance Lab and were provided for use in this study by Anuj Pradhan, graduate student at UMASS Amherst.

  39. Results for simulator evaluation The non-published variances and means for the RAPT-1 evaluation are based on former work at the Human Performance Lab and were provided for use in this study by Anuj Pradhan, graduate student at UMASS Amherst.

  40. Outline • Review of Motivation • Experimental Design • Training Experimental Group • Training Control Group • Simulator Evaluation • Scoring and Results • Training Results • HPL Simulator Results • Conclusion

  41. Conclusions • RAPT/SIMRAPT  Ability to fixate on areas of potential risk on HPL driving simulator  Training succeeded for particular scenarios • RAPT  Recognize Risks from Plan View • SIMRAPT  Ability to recognize risks in driving task on Drive Square Simulator • Training effects exceed those of PC Training, though not significantly

  42. Suggestions for future research • Generalization  Deversify training • Duration of the training  Redesign Training • Effects of simulator driving for control group  More extensive study necessary

  43. Thank you for your attention Any Questions? Additions? Suggestions?

More Related