Hernando Ana, Lucas-Alba Antonio, Lombas Andrés S, Blanch Maria Teresa
Emotion, Regulation and Adjustment Group, Department of Psychology and Sociology, University of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain.
Behav Sci (Basel). 2025 Sep 20;15(9):1288. doi: 10.3390/bs15091288.
This study examines differences in comprehension between drivers and non-drivers when interpreting variable message signs (VMSs) combining three elements-a pictogram, an arrow, and a city name-to indicate temporary traffic events (e.g., "congestion before Lyon"). A total of 101 participants (51 non-drivers) were shown VMS displays reporting an event associated with one of four cities and were asked to identify the event's location (before or after the city). The experiment employed a mixed factorial design. Two between-subject factors were included: Driving License (present vs. absent) and Route Listing (present vs. absent). Four within-subject factors were manipulated: Complementary Message (present vs. absent), Landmark Order (bottom-up vs. top-down), Event Location (before vs. after), and Arrow Function (explicit vs. generic). The dependent variable was the accuracy of location identification. The results showed that, for drivers, the most effective combination was bottom-up order with an explicit arrow, followed by bottom-up with a generic arrow, and then top-down with an explicit arrow. For non-drivers, no significant differences were found between these combinations. However, comprehension decreased across both groups when the message used a top-down order and a generic arrow. Overall, the data suggest that the G1c template from the 1968 Convention is not effective for either group. Prior driving experience seems to favor one specific design, the bottom-up order with explicit arrow, while non-drivers perceive all functionally viable options-including that one-as equally valid.
本研究考察了驾驶员和非驾驶员在解读可变情报板（VMS）时的理解差异，该可变情报板结合了象形图、箭头和城市名称这三个元素来指示临时交通事件（例如，“里昂前方拥堵”）。共有101名参与者（51名非驾驶员）观看了报告与四个城市之一相关事件的VMS显示屏，并被要求确定事件的位置（在城市之前还是之后）。该实验采用了混合因子设计。包括两个组间因素：驾照（有 vs. 无）和路线列表（有 vs. 无）。四个组内因素被操控：补充信息（有 vs. 无）、地标顺序（自下而上 vs. 自上而下）、事件位置（在……之前 vs. 在……之后）和箭头功能（明确的 vs. 通用的）。因变量是位置识别的准确性。结果表明，对于驾驶员来说，最有效的组合是带有明确箭头的自下而上顺序，其次是带有通用箭头的自下而上顺序，然后是带有明确箭头的自上而下顺序。对于非驾驶员来说，这些组合之间没有发现显著差异。然而，当信息采用自上而下顺序和通用箭头时，两组的理解能力都有所下降。总体而言，数据表明1968年公约中的G1c模板对两组都无效。先前的驾驶经验似乎有利于一种特定的设计，即带有明确箭头的自下而上顺序，而非驾驶员认为所有功能上可行的选项——包括这一选项——都是同样有效的。
