The effect of reduced contrast on drivers' speed perception

It has been demonstrated, using abstract psychophysical stimuli, that speeds appear slower when contrast is reduced under certain conditions. Does this effect have any real life consequences? One previous study has found, using a low fidelity driving simulator, that participants perceived vehicle speeds to be slower in foggy conditions. We replicated this finding with a more realistic video-based simulator using the Method of Constant Stimuli. We also found that lowering contrast reduced participants’ ability to discriminate speeds. We argue that these reduced contrast effects could partly explain the higher crash rate of drivers with cataracts (this is a substantial societal problem and the crash relationship variance can be accounted for by reduced contrast). Note that even if people with cataracts can calibrate for the shift in their perception of speed using their speedometers (given that cataracts are experienced over long periods), they may still have an increased chance of making errors in speed estimation due to poor speed discrimination. This could result in individuals misjudging vehicle trajectories and thereby inflating their crash risk. We propose interventions that may help address this problem.

Signal detection theory in applied tasks: The case of hazard perception in driving

Fuzzy signal detection analysis can be a useful complementary technique to traditional signal detection theory analysis methods, particularly in applied settings. For example, traffic situations are better conceived as being on a continuum from no potential for hazard to high potential, rather than either having potential or not having potential. This study examined the relative contribution of sensitivity and response bias to explaining differences in the hazard perception performance of novices and experienced drivers, and the effect of a training manipulation. Novice drivers and experienced drivers were compared (N = 64). Half the novices received training, while the experienced drivers and half the novices remained untrained. Participants completed a hazard perception test and rated potential for hazard in occluded scenes. The response latency of participants to the hazard perception test replicated previous findings of experienced/novice differences and trained/untrained differences. Fuzzy signal detection analysis of both the hazard perception task and the occluded rating task suggested that response bias may be more central to hazard perception test performance than sensitivity, with trained and experienced drivers responding faster and with a more liberal bias than untrained novices. Implications for driver training and the hazard perception test are discussed.