Melman Timo, Abbink David A, van Paassen Marinus M, Boer Erwin R, de Winter Joost C F
a Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Materials Engineering , Delft University of Technology , Delft , the Netherlands.
b Faculty of Aerospace Engineering , Delft University of Technology , Delft , the Netherlands.
Ergonomics. 2018 Jul;61(7):966-987. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2018.1426790. Epub 2018 Feb 5.
We conceptually replicated three highly cited experiments on speed adaptation, by measuring drivers' experienced risk (galvanic skin response; GSR), experienced task difficulty (self-reported task effort; SRTE) and safety margins (time-to-line-crossing; TLC) in a single experiment. The three measures were compared using a nonparametric index that captures the criteria of constancy during self-paced driving and sensitivity during forced-paced driving. In a driving simulator, 24 participants completed two forced-paced and one self-paced run. Each run held four different lane width conditions. Results showed that participants drove faster on wider lanes, thus confirming the expected speed adaptation. None of the three measures offered persuasive evidence for speed adaptation because they failed either the sensitivity criterion (GSR) or the constancy criterion (TLC, SRTE). An additional measure, steering reversal rate, outperformed the other three measures regarding sensitivity and constancy, prompting a further evaluation of the role of control activity in speed adaptation. Practitioner Summary: Results from a driving simulator experiment suggest that it is not experienced risk, experienced effort or safety margins that govern drivers' choice of speed. Rather, our findings suggest that steering reversal rate has an explanatory role in speed adaptation.
我们通过在一项实验中测量驾驶员的体验风险（皮肤电反应；GSR）、体验任务难度（自我报告的任务努力程度；SRTE）和安全边际（越线时间；TLC），从概念上重复了三项关于速度适应的高引用实验。使用一个非参数指标对这三项测量结果进行比较，该指标捕捉了自定速度驾驶期间的恒定性标准和强制速度驾驶期间的敏感性标准。在驾驶模拟器中，24名参与者完成了两次强制速度驾驶和一次自定速度驾驶。每次驾驶包含四种不同的车道宽度条件。结果表明，参与者在较宽车道上行驶得更快，从而证实了预期的速度适应。这三项测量结果均未提供关于速度适应的有说服力证据，因为它们要么未达到敏感性标准（GSR），要么未达到恒定性标准（TLC、SRTE）。另一项测量指标，即转向反转率，在敏感性和恒定性方面优于其他三项测量指标，这促使我们进一步评估控制活动在速度适应中的作用。从业者总结：驾驶模拟器实验结果表明，并非体验风险、体验努力程度或安全边际决定驾驶员的速度选择。相反，我们的研究结果表明转向反转率在速度适应中具有解释作用。
