Collision Warning Timing, Driver Distraction, and Driver Response to Imminent Rear-End Collisions in a High-Fidelity Driving Simulator

By John D. Lee, D. McGehee, T. Brown, Michelle L. Reyes. Hum. Factors, 2002

615 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e8cef042e212b94c2cb4e1d0c24eeb923da73f7a

How researchers see this paper

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

In Automotive Engineering

In Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Safety Benefits of Forward Collision Warning, Brake Assist, and Autonomous Braking Systems in Rear-End Collisions (2012, background): “For example, Lee et al. exposed driving simulator users to a lead vehicle stopped scenario and found that FCW reduced the number of collisions for that scenario by 80.7% [10].”
“Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop? (2013, background): “For example, Lee et al. (2002) found, that an acoustical warning significantly shortens the braking time of drivers, whether they are distracted or not.”
Threaded cognition: an integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. (2008, methodology): “We also reestimated three parameter values for the current simulation (see Salvucci, 2005, for parameter descriptions): minor adjustments to the steering scaling factor (0.85) and the stability scaling factor (3.0) to account for slight differences in simulation environments and a change to the acce”
Drivers’ rear end collision avoidance behaviors under different levels of situational urgency (2016, background): “This is consistent with the finding of Lee et al. (2002) in which the reaction time for throttle release decreased from 2.11 s in the first trial to 1.67 s in the second trial.”
Ergonomics Society of the Human Factors and Human Factors: The Journal (2014, positive): “Studies performed with drivers unfamiliar with CAS alerts found that the alerts can be effective at directing a distracted driver’s attention back to the road and priming the release of the throttle (Lee et al., 2002; Perez, Neale, & Kiefer, 2009).”
Drivers' attitudes toward imperfect distraction mitigation strategies (2006, background): “Previous research has shown that both auditory and visual tasks can distract drivers with a significant degradation in driving performance (Cooper & Zheng, 2002; Cooper et al., 2003; Lee, McGehee, Brown, & Reyes, 2002 ).”
Modeling Driver Behavior in a Cognitive Architecture (2006, methodology): “... most motor movements, drivers do not need to operate near peak performance (e.g., turning the steering wheel), and thus the model imposes only one significant constraint: A foot movement between the accelerator and brake requires 200 ms of preparation time (based on preparation of four motor par”
A Comparison of Tactile, Visual, and Auditory Warnings for Rear-End Collision Prevention in Simulated Driving (2008, methodology): “In fact, long-term exposure (i.e., everyday driving) to nuisance alarms could potentially undermine any safety benefits of collision warnings (J. D. Lee et al., 2002).”