Time-to-collision judgments of constant and non-constant velocities: Implications for rear-end collisions

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 2463-2467

  Tharanathan, Anand ^a   DeLucia, Patricia R ^a  

^a TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SELF MOTION; TIME TO COLLISION (TTC);

COLLISION AVOIDANCE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; MOTION CONTROL; VELOCITY CONTROL;

AUTOMOBILE DRIVERS;

EID: 44349164593     PISSN: 10711813     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. Benguigui, N., Ripoll, H., & Broderick, M. P. (2003). Time-to-contact estimation of accelerated stimuli is based on first-order-information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 1083-1101.
2. DeLucia, P. R. (2004). Multiple sources of information influence time-to-contact judgments: Do heuristics accommodate limits in sensory and cognitive processes? In H. Hecht & G. J. P. Savelsbergh (Eds.), Advances in psychology: vol 13. Time-to-Contact (pp. 243-286). Amsterdam: Elsevier-North-Holland.
3. DeLucia, P. R., & Liddell, G. W. (1998). Cognitive motion extrapolation and cognitive clocking in prediction motion tasks: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 901-914.
4. DeLucia, P. R. & Tharanathan, A. (2005). Effects of optic flow and discrete warnings on deceleration detection during car following. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting.
5. Gray, R., & Regan, D. (2000). Simulated self-motion alters perceived time to collision. Current Biology, 10, 587-590.
6. Hesketh, B., & Godley, S. T. (2002). A comparison of time estimations in driving with target-only in motion, self-only in motion, and self-and-target in motion. Ecological Psychology, 14, 111-125.
7. Lee, D. N. (1976). A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision. Perception, 5, 437-459.
8. th Annual Meeting.
9. Manser, M. P., & Hancock, P. A. (1996). Influence of approach angle on estimates of time-to-contact. Ecological Psychology, 8, 71-99.
10. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2000). NHTSA driver distraction expert working group meetings: Summary & Proceedings. NHTSA: Washington, DC.
11. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
13. Schiff, W., & Detwiler, M. (1979). Information used in judging impending collisions. Perception, 8, 647-658.
14. Schiff, W., & Oldak, R. (1990). Accuracy of judging time to arrival: Effects of modality, trajectory, and gender. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 303-316.
15. Shinar, D., Rotenberg, E., & Cohen, T. (1997). Crash reduction with an advance brake warning system: A digital simulation. Human Factors, 39, 296-302.
16. Tresilian, J. R. (1991). Empirical and theoretical issues in the perception of time to contact. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 865-876.
17. Tresilian, J. R. (1995). Perceptual and cognitive processes in time-to-contact estimation: Analysis of prediction-motion and relative judgment tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 231-245.
18. Veeramallu, S. R. (2000). Collision avoidance systems. MTC Transportation Scholars Conference. Ames, Iowa.
19. Yakimoff, N., Mateef, S., Ehrenstein, W. H., & Hohnsbein, J. (1993). Motion extrapolation performance: A linear approach. Human Factors, 35, 501-510.