國立虎尾科技大學 |

Individual Differences in Intramodal and Crossmodal Inattentional Insensitivity and the Design of In-Vehicle Alert Systems.

Record Type:	Language materials, manuscript : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Individual Differences in Intramodal and Crossmodal Inattentional Insensitivity and the Design of In-Vehicle Alert Systems./
Author:	Lewis, Bridget A.
Description:	1 online resource (172 pages)
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-07(E), Section: B.
Subject:	Experimental psychology. -
Online resource:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9780355649284

Individual Differences in Intramodal and Crossmodal Inattentional Insensitivity and the Design of In-Vehicle Alert Systems.
Lewis, Bridget A.

Individual Differences in Intramodal and Crossmodal Inattentional Insensitivity and the Design of In-Vehicle Alert Systems. - 1 online resource (172 pages)

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-07(E), Section: B.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--George Mason University, 2017.

Includes bibliographical references

Around 20% of all automobile crashes in recent years have been linked to driver distraction or inattention. A subset of these crashes, involve "Looked But Failed to See" (LBFTS) incidents in which an otherwise attentive driver completely fails to notice a salient signal. In the best case, this may involve a driver putting on the brakes late because she failed to notice a red light and stopping with her nose into an intersection, causing embarrassment but no harm. But in the worst case, looking but failing to see causes about 6% of all injury and fatality-related crashes per data from the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). LBTFS are a type of inattentional blindness, a subset of inattentional insensitivity. Inattentional insensitivity is a blanket term that describes the well-known phenomena of inattentional blindness and inattentional deafness. These phenomena occur when an otherwise salient stimulus is missed during high levels of perceptual load. For example, pilots coming in for a difficult landing in high cross winds miss auditory alarms notifying them of a landing gear failure, or drivers lost at night on an unfamiliar route fail to see a stop sign. It is hypothesized that inattentional insensitivity is integrally tied to an individual's working memory capacity. Previous studies have proposed theoretical accounts involving both single and dual routes for this relationship. A major goal of this dissertation is to determine which of these theoretical explanations best predict patterns of inattentional insensitivity. A second goal of this dissertation is to address methods of ameliorating inattentional insensitivity, regardless of their cause, via the design of effective, multimodal alert systems. Towards the second goal, the first study, details an investigation of multimodal urgency scaling with the goal of determining perceived changes in urgency relative to physical changes in visual, auditory and tactile stimuli. Psychometric functions were obtained for various parameters within each modality based on perceptions of urgency, annoyance and acceptability. Results indicated that auditory stimuli affected the biggest increases in urgency relative to physical changes, but that with increased urgency often came increased annoyance. Visual stimuli were rarely rated as annoying but were also unable to achieve similarly high levels of urgency relative to auditory or tactile stimuli. Tactile stimuli showed the greatest utility (indicating greater urgency changes in relation to annoyance changes). The second study, was designed to validate the psychometric functions established in the first study by examining behavioral responses to warnings designed to be perceived as highly urgent and time critical versus warnings missing key parameters within the context of driving. Specifically, the second study examined the potential for appropriate warnings to eliminate inattentional insensitivity to alerts while distracted, regardless of why it was occurring. Towards this aim, the second study required participants to drive a simulated course while completing a distracting task and following a lead vehicle. At a pre-set point, the lead vehicle swerved sharply into the left lane to avoid a revealed, stopped car. Participants then received either a "good" warning, one that met all pre-defined criteria, an "edge" warning, one that met only some of the criteria, or no warning. Results indicated that, while crash occurrences were not significantly different, for those who did crash, they crashed at a significantly slower speed.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2018

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9780355649284Subjects--Topical Terms:

1180476
Experimental psychology.
Index Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

Individual Differences in Intramodal and Crossmodal Inattentional Insensitivity and the Design of In-Vehicle Alert Systems.
LDR:06341ntm a2200325K 4500 001 914477
005 20180712070706.5
006 m o u
007 cr mn||||a|a||
008 190606s2017 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9780355649284
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10685302
035 $a (MiAaPQ)gmu:11620
035 $a AAI10685302
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Lewis, Bridget A. $3 1187749
245 1 0 $a Individual Differences in Intramodal and Crossmodal Inattentional Insensitivity and the Design of In-Vehicle Alert Systems.
264 0 $c 2017
300 $a 1 online resource (172 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-07(E), Section: B.
500 $a Adviser: Carryl L. Baldwin.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--George Mason University, 2017.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a Around 20% of all automobile crashes in recent years have been linked to driver distraction or inattention. A subset of these crashes, involve "Looked But Failed to See" (LBFTS) incidents in which an otherwise attentive driver completely fails to notice a salient signal. In the best case, this may involve a driver putting on the brakes late because she failed to notice a red light and stopping with her nose into an intersection, causing embarrassment but no harm. But in the worst case, looking but failing to see causes about 6% of all injury and fatality-related crashes per data from the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). LBTFS are a type of inattentional blindness, a subset of inattentional insensitivity. Inattentional insensitivity is a blanket term that describes the well-known phenomena of inattentional blindness and inattentional deafness. These phenomena occur when an otherwise salient stimulus is missed during high levels of perceptual load. For example, pilots coming in for a difficult landing in high cross winds miss auditory alarms notifying them of a landing gear failure, or drivers lost at night on an unfamiliar route fail to see a stop sign. It is hypothesized that inattentional insensitivity is integrally tied to an individual's working memory capacity. Previous studies have proposed theoretical accounts involving both single and dual routes for this relationship. A major goal of this dissertation is to determine which of these theoretical explanations best predict patterns of inattentional insensitivity. A second goal of this dissertation is to address methods of ameliorating inattentional insensitivity, regardless of their cause, via the design of effective, multimodal alert systems. Towards the second goal, the first study, details an investigation of multimodal urgency scaling with the goal of determining perceived changes in urgency relative to physical changes in visual, auditory and tactile stimuli. Psychometric functions were obtained for various parameters within each modality based on perceptions of urgency, annoyance and acceptability. Results indicated that auditory stimuli affected the biggest increases in urgency relative to physical changes, but that with increased urgency often came increased annoyance. Visual stimuli were rarely rated as annoying but were also unable to achieve similarly high levels of urgency relative to auditory or tactile stimuli. Tactile stimuli showed the greatest utility (indicating greater urgency changes in relation to annoyance changes). The second study, was designed to validate the psychometric functions established in the first study by examining behavioral responses to warnings designed to be perceived as highly urgent and time critical versus warnings missing key parameters within the context of driving. Specifically, the second study examined the potential for appropriate warnings to eliminate inattentional insensitivity to alerts while distracted, regardless of why it was occurring. Towards this aim, the second study required participants to drive a simulated course while completing a distracting task and following a lead vehicle. At a pre-set point, the lead vehicle swerved sharply into the left lane to avoid a revealed, stopped car. Participants then received either a "good" warning, one that met all pre-defined criteria, an "edge" warning, one that met only some of the criteria, or no warning. Results indicated that, while crash occurrences were not significantly different, for those who did crash, they crashed at a significantly slower speed.
520 $a The final study in this series, sought to examine the effect of working memory capacity (WMC: as measured by OSpan) on various types of inattentional insensitivity. Specifically, inattentional insensitivity was examined for intramodal and crossmodal tasks involving either visual or auditory critical signals. Participants were asked to first complete a computerized version of the OSpan task to evaluate their working memory capacity. They were then assessed for inattentional insensitivity starting in one of four conditions: visual task- visual critical signal, visual task-auditory critical signal, auditory task-auditory critical signal, and auditory task-visual critical signal. In this series, the visual task was a cross arm-length detection task and the auditory task was a rapid serial auditory presentation task. The critical signals (CSs) were either visual pictures of shapes or auditory names of shapes. Results from Study 3 indicate that, although inattentional insensitivity was present in all modality combinations for some proportion of the population, individuals were less likely to miss critical signals when they were in the same modality as the main task (intramodal signals). Results also indicate a significant difference in sensitivity by WMC, where those with medium to high WMC were significantly more likely to notice an intramodal CS than a crossmodal CS, though this effect was not present for those with low WMC levels. (Abstract shortened by ProQuest.).
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2018
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Experimental psychology. $3 1180476
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0623
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
710 2 $a George Mason University. $b Psychology. $3 1186560
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10685302 $z click for full text (PQDT)