|
Abstract
|
PURPOSE: We examined collision warning systems with different modalities and timing thresholds, assessing their impact on responses to pedestrian hazards by drivers with impaired contrast sensitivity (ICS).
METHODS: Seventeen ICS (70-84 y, median CS 1.35 log units) and 17 normal vision (NV: 68-73 y, median CS 1.95) participants completed 6 city drives in a simulator with 3 bimodal warnings: visual-auditory, visual-directional-tactile, and visual-non-directional-tactile. Each modality had one drive with early and one with late warnings, triggered at 3.5 s and 2 s time-to-collision, respectively.
RESULTS: ICS participants triggered more early (43 vs 37 %) and late warnings (12 vs 6 %) than NV participants and had more collisions (3 vs 0 %). Early warnings reduced time to fixate hazards (late 1.9 vs early 1.2 s, p < 0.001), brake response times (2.8 vs 1.8 s, p < 0.001) and collision rates (1.2 vs 0.02 %). With late warnings, ICS participants took 0.7 s longer to brake than NV (p < 0.001) and had an 11 % collision rate (vs 0.7 % with early warnings). Non-directional-tactile warnings yielded the lowest collision rates for ICS participants (4 vs auditory 12 vs directional-tactile 15.2 %) in late warning scenarios. All ICS participants preferred early warnings.
CONCLUSIONS: While early warnings improved hazard responses and reduced collisions for ICS participants, late warnings did not, resulting in high collision rates. In contrast, both early and late warnings were helpful for NV drivers. Non-directional-tactile warnings were the most effective in reducing collisions. The findings provide insights relevant to the development of hazard warnings tailored for drivers with impaired vision.
Language: en |