Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds LS1 9JT, UK.
Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds LS1 9JT, UK.
Accid Anal Prev. 2022 Sep;174:106770. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2022.106770. Epub 2022 Jul 15.
Distractions have been recognised as one important factor associated with pedestrian injuries, as the increasing use of cell phones and personal devices. However, the situation is less clear regarding the differences in the effects of visual-manual and auditory-cognitive distractions. Here, we investigated distracted pedestrians in a one-lane road with continuous traffic using an immersive CAVE-based simulator. Sixty participants were recruited to complete a crossing task and perform one of two distractions, a visual-manual task and an auditory-cognitive task. Moreover, normal and time pressure crossing conditions were included as a baseline and comparison. For the first time, this study directly compared the impacts of visual-manual, auditory-cognitive distractions, and time pressure on pedestrian crossing behaviour and safety in a controlled environment. The results indicated that although pedestrian safety was compromised under both types of distraction, the effects of the applied distractions were different. When engaged in the visual-manual distraction, participants crossed the road slowly, but there was no significant difference in gap acceptance or initiation time compared to baseline. In contrast, participants walked slowly, crossed earlier, and accepted smaller gaps when performing the auditory-cognitive distraction. This has interesting parallels to existing findings on how these two types of distractions affect driver performance. Moreover, the effects of the visual-manual distraction were found to be dynamic, as these effects were affected by the gap size. Finally, compared to baseline, time pressure resulted in participants accepting smaller time gaps with shorter initiation times and crossing durations, leading to an increase in unsafe decisions and a decrease in near-collisions. These results provide new evidence that two types of distraction and time pressure impair pedestrian safety, but in different ways. Our findings may provide insights for further studies involving pedestrians with different distraction components.
分心已被认为是与行人受伤相关的一个重要因素,尤其是在越来越多地使用手机和个人设备的情况下。然而,关于视觉-手动和听觉-认知分心的影响差异,情况尚不清楚。在这里,我们使用沉浸式基于 CAVE 的模拟器研究了单车道上连续交通中的分心行人。招募了 60 名参与者完成穿越任务,并执行两种分心任务之一,即视觉-手动任务和听觉-认知任务。此外,还包括正常和时间压力穿越条件作为基线和比较。这是首次在受控环境中直接比较视觉-手动、听觉-认知分心和时间压力对行人穿越行为和安全的影响。结果表明,尽管在两种类型的分心情况下行人安全都受到了影响,但应用分心的影响是不同的。当参与者从事视觉-手动分心时,他们会缓慢地穿越道路,但与基线相比,间隙接受或开始时间没有显著差异。相比之下,当参与者执行听觉认知分心时,他们会走得很慢,并且更早地穿越,接受更小的间隙。这与关于这两种类型的分心如何影响驾驶员性能的现有发现有有趣的相似之处。此外,发现视觉-手动分心的影响是动态的,因为这些影响受到间隙大小的影响。最后,与基线相比,时间压力导致参与者接受更小的时间间隙,起始时间和穿越时间更短,导致不安全决策增加,近碰撞减少。这些结果提供了新的证据,证明两种类型的分心和时间压力会损害行人安全,但方式不同。我们的研究结果可能为涉及具有不同分心成分的行人的进一步研究提供启示。