Cognitive Ergonomics Research Laboratory, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Accid Anal Prev. 2010 Nov;42(6):1822-30. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.05.003. Epub 2010 Jun 2.
This study examined situations where drivers looked-but-failed-to-see (LBFTS) hazards, and whether passenger conversation and gender affected hazard detection rates. To reliably produce LBFTS errors, 40 young drivers (M=20.3) encountered motorcycles and pedestrians while making left turns in the University of Calgary Driving Simulator (UCDS). Prior to turn initiation the UCDS screens flickered using an extension of change blindness methods. In addition, drivers either drove alone or conversed with an attractive confederate passenger. Measures of LBFTS errors, hazard detection and social factors were analyzed. Higher rates of LBFTS errors and hazard detection occurred while conversing than while driving alone. A discriminant function analysis (DFA) using conversation and gender as predictors accurately classified LBFTS errors. Higher passenger attraction and higher extroversion were related to critical events being missed. The basis of LBFTS errors in divided and selective attention and classification implications are discussed.
这项研究考察了驾驶员“看而不见”（LBFTS）危险的情况，以及乘客交谈和性别是否会影响危险察觉率。为了可靠地产生 LBFTS 错误，40 名年轻驾驶员（M=20.3）在卡尔加里大学驾驶模拟器（UCDS）中进行左转时遇到了摩托车和行人。在转弯开始之前，UCDS 屏幕使用变化盲视方法的扩展进行闪烁。此外，驾驶员要么独自驾驶，要么与有魅力的同车乘客交谈。分析了 LBFTS 错误、危险察觉和社会因素的测量结果。交谈时比独自驾驶时 LBFTS 错误和危险察觉的发生率更高。使用交谈和性别作为预测因子的判别函数分析（DFA）准确地对 LBFTS 错误进行了分类。较高的乘客吸引力和较高的外向性与关键事件的遗漏有关。讨论了在分散和选择性注意中 LBFTS 错误的基础及其分类意义。
