Citation

Scott A, Swenson L, Bentzen B, Barlow J. Transp. Res. Rec. 2013; 2384: 10-17.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2013, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences USA, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.3141/2384-02

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This study evaluated the effect of visual pedestrian signal displays on the ability of persons with reduced visual acuity to accurately and confidently identify the pedestrian interval. While watching video clips of actual intersections presented on a 42-in. monitor under simulated visual impairment, participants attempted to determine the pedestrian interval ("Walk," flashing "Don't Walk," or steady "Don't Walk") and provided confidence ratings for each judgment. Participants in Experiment 1 experienced simulated acuities of 20/70, 20/100, and 20/200; participants in Experiment 2 experienced approximate acuities of 20/20, 20/50, and 20/300. The study made a critical comparison of two methods of signaling the pedestrian change interval (i.e., flashing "Don't Walk"): ( a ) simultaneous presentation of a countdown and a flashing upraised hand symbol and ( b ) a countdown-only display without the flashing upraised hand. With the exception of performance in the 20/300 vision category, participants' accuracy on the interval discrimination task was, overall, rather high. However, under simulated visual impairment of 20/70 or worse, participants' success in correctly determining the pedestrian interval was, on average, 21.5 percentage points lower for the countdown display presented without the flashing upraised hand than for the countdown display with the upraised hand. The participants' average reported confidence in their judgment was also lower for the countdown-only condition, and their interval judgment response times also showed a negative effect of the countdown-only display. Implications of the study findings with regard to visual impairment and signal displays for the pedestrian change interval are discussed.