a Fraunhofer Institute for Structural Durability and System Reliability LBF , Darmstadt , Germany.
Traffic Inj Prev. 2014;15(3):302-9. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2013.806794.
This article aims at identifying the most significant measures in 2 perception-response (PR) tests performed at a driving simulator: a braking test and a lateral skid test, which were developed in this work.
Forty-eight subjects (26 females and 22 males) with a mean age of 24.9 ± 3.0 years were enrolled for this study. They were asked to perform a drive on the driving simulator at the University of Pisa (Italy) following a specific test protocol, including 8-10 braking tests and 8-10 lateral skid tests. Driver input signals and vehicle model signals were recorded during the drives and analyzed to extract measures such as the reaction time, first response time, etc. Following a statistical procedure (based on analysis of variance [ANOVA] and post hoc tests), all test measures (3 for the braking test and 8 for the lateral skid test) were analyzed in terms of statistically significant differences among different drivers. The presented procedure allows evaluation of the capability of a given test to distinguish among different drivers.
In the braking test, the reaction time showed a high dispersion among single drivers, leading to just 4.8 percent of statistically significant driver pairs (using the Games-Howell post hoc test), whereas the pedal transition time scored 31.9 percent. In the lateral skid test, 28.5 percent of the 2 × 2 comparisons showed significantly different reaction times, 19.5 percent had different response times, 35.2 percent had a different second peak of the steering wheel signal, and 33 percent showed different values of the integral of the steering wheel signal.
For the braking test, which has been widely employed in similar forms in the literature, it was shown how the reaction time, with respect to the pedal transition time, can have a higher dispersion due to the influence of external factors. For the lateral skid test, the following measures were identified as the most significant for application studies: the reaction time for the reaction phase, the second peak of the steering wheel angle for the first instinctive response, and the integral of the steering wheel angle for the complete response. The methodology used to analyze the test measures was founded on statistically based and objective evaluation criteria and could be applied to other tests. Even if obtained with a fixed-base simulator, the obtained results represent useful information for applications of the presented PR tests in experimental campaigns with driving simulators.
本文旨在确定在驾驶模拟器上进行的两项感知-反应(PR)测试中最重要的措施:制动测试和横向滑溜测试,这两项测试是本工作中开发的。
这项研究纳入了 48 名受试者(26 名女性和 22 名男性),平均年龄为 24.9±3.0 岁。他们被要求按照特定的测试协议在比萨大学(意大利)的驾驶模拟器上进行驾驶,包括 8-10 次制动测试和 8-10 次横向滑溜测试。在驾驶过程中记录驾驶员输入信号和车辆模型信号,并对其进行分析以提取反应时间、首次响应时间等测量值。通过统计程序(基于方差分析[ANOVA]和事后检验),对制动测试的 3 项测试措施和横向滑溜测试的 8 项测试措施,根据不同驾驶员之间的统计显著差异进行了分析。所提出的程序允许评估给定测试区分不同驾驶员的能力。
在制动测试中,反应时间在单个驾驶员之间存在很大的分散性,导致只有 4.8%的驾驶员对具有统计学意义(使用 Games-Howell 事后检验),而踏板转换时间则为 31.9%。在横向滑溜测试中,28.5%的 2×2 比较显示反应时间有显著差异,19.5%的比较显示响应时间有差异,35.2%的比较显示方向盘信号的第二个峰值有差异,33%的比较显示方向盘信号积分有差异。
对于制动测试,该测试已在文献中以类似的形式广泛应用,本文表明了反应时间相对于踏板转换时间如何由于外部因素的影响而具有更高的分散性。对于横向滑溜测试,确定了以下措施作为应用研究中最重要的措施:反应阶段的反应时间、第一本能反应的方向盘角度的第二个峰值和方向盘角度的积分。用于分析测试措施的方法基于基于统计学的客观评估标准,可应用于其他测试。即使是使用固定基座模拟器获得的结果,也代表了在驾驶模拟器实验活动中应用所提出的 PR 测试的有用信息。