McManus Benjamin, Mrug Sylvie, Wagner William P, Underhill Andrea, Pawar Piyush, Anthony Thomas, Stavrinos Despina
University of Alabama, Institute of Social Science Research, 306 Paul W. Bryant Dr., Tuscaloosa, AL 35401, United States.
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Psychology, Campbell Hall 415, 1300 University Blvd, Birmingham, AL 35223, United States.
Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2024 Aug;105:257-266. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2024.05.021. Epub 2024 Jul 16.
Although driving simulators are powerful tools capable of measuring a wide-ranging set of tactical and operational level driving behaviors, comparing these behaviors across studies is problematic because there is no core set of driving variables to report when assessing driving behavior in simulated driving scenarios. To facilitate comparisons across studies, researchers need consistency in how driving simulator variables combine to assess driving behavior. With inter-study consistency, driving simulator research could support stronger conclusions about safe driving behaviors and more reliably identify future driver training goals. The purpose of the current study was to derive empirically and theoretically meaningful composite scores from driving behaviors of young people in a driving simulator, utilizing driving data from across a variety of driving environments and from within the individual driving environments.
One hundred ninety adolescent participants aged 16 years or 18 years at enrollment provided demographic data and drove in a high-fidelity driving simulator. The simulated scenario included 4 distinct environments: Urban, Freeway, Residential, and a Car Following Task (CFT). A Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was conducted on the variable output from the driving simulator to select optimal factor solutions and loadings both across the multi-environmental drive and within the four individual driving environments.
The PCA suggested two components from the multi-environmental simulated drive: vehicle control and speed. The individual driving environments also indicated two components: vehicle control and tactical judgment.
These findings are among the first steps for identifying composite driving simulator variables to quantify theoretical conceptualizations of driving behavior. Currently, driving behavior and performance measured by driving simulators lack "gold standards" via driving scores or benchmarks. The composites derived in this analysis may be studied for further use where driving behavior standards are increasingly sought by clinicians and practitioners for a variety of populations, as well as by parents concerned about the readiness of their novice driving teen.
尽管驾驶模拟器是功能强大的工具,能够测量一系列广泛的战术和操作层面的驾驶行为,但跨研究比较这些行为存在问题,因为在评估模拟驾驶场景中的驾驶行为时,没有一套核心的驾驶变量可供报告。为便于跨研究比较,研究人员需要在驾驶模拟器变量如何组合以评估驾驶行为方面保持一致。有了研究间的一致性,驾驶模拟器研究就能支持关于安全驾驶行为的更有力结论,并更可靠地确定未来的驾驶员培训目标。本研究的目的是利用来自各种驾驶环境以及个体驾驶环境中的驾驶数据,从驾驶模拟器中年轻人的驾驶行为中得出具有实证和理论意义的综合分数。
190名年龄在16岁或18岁的青少年参与者在入组时提供了人口统计学数据,并在高保真驾驶模拟器中进行驾驶。模拟场景包括4个不同的环境:城市、高速公路、居民区和跟车任务(CFT)。对驾驶模拟器的变量输出进行主成分分析(PCA),以选择跨多环境驾驶以及在四个个体驾驶环境中的最优因子解和载荷。
PCA显示多环境模拟驾驶中有两个成分:车辆控制和速度。个体驾驶环境也显示有两个成分:车辆控制和战术判断。
这些发现是确定综合驾驶模拟器变量以量化驾驶行为理论概念化的初步步骤之一。目前,驾驶模拟器测量的驾驶行为和表现缺乏通过驾驶分数或基准来衡量的“黄金标准”。在临床医生、从业者以及关心新手驾驶青少年准备情况的家长越来越多地寻求驾驶行为标准的各种人群中,本分析得出的综合指标可能会被进一步研究以供使用。