The effect of alarm timing on driver behaviour: an investigation of differences in driver trust and response to alarms according to alarm timing

By G. Abe, J. Richardson. 2004

89 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The present paper describes a study concerned with the effect of alarm timing on driver trust and behaviour with a Forward Collision Warning System (FCWS). In this driving simulator experiment three different kinds of alarm timing (late/middle/early) were compared with respect to driver braking strategy and driver trust. The results showed that early alarm timing led to a more timely response to an imminent collision than either middle or late timing. With respect to driver trust, trust in late alarm timing is low compared with early or middle alarm timing. Furthermore the relationship between the timing of accelerator release and the timing of alarm onset is an important cause of changes in trust and if alarms are presented after drivers have already started to brake then trust is impaired. Middle alarm timing has the potential to improve driver braking response to imminent collisions. Possible benefits and drawbacks of FCWS are discussed from the viewpoint of alarm timing.

Subfields: Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c5399b793e563f2dde83b8ee17b3901c4aeac683

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Trust in Automation (2015, background): “Additionally, in two separate studies, Abe and Richardson (2004, 2006) showed that drivers trusted a collision warning system significantly less when the sys-tem provided alarms after braking had already been initiated.”
Drivers’ rear end collision avoidance behaviors under different levels of situational urgency (2016, unknown): “PRTs and throttle release times of Abe and Richardson (2004) and Jamson et al. (2008) were estimated from figures because no explicit values were reported.”
A Comparison of Tactile, Visual, and Auditory Warnings for Rear-End Collision Prevention in Simulated Driving (2008, methodology): “Abe and Richardson (2004) argued that warning timing influences drivers’ perception of warning validity or reliability, with consequent effects on system acceptance and effectiveness.”
A Meta-Analysis of Factors Influencing the Development of Trust in Automation (2016, background): “Capabilities Abe and Richardson (2004) Abe and Richardson (2005) Bagheri (2004) Bagheri & Jamieson (2004) Bliss and Acton (2003) De Vries, Midden, & Bouwhuis (2003) Donmez et al. (2006) Gupta, Bisantz, & Singh (2002) Ho et al.”