Braking under pressure: differential effects of cue utilisation across hazard types in driving

Engineering notes

Although cognitive load did not differ across hazard types nor levels of cue utilisation, attention metrics such as fixation duration and time to first fixation varied significantly depending on hazard predictability and complexity.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为端到端自动驾驶、BEV感知、3D目标检测、轨迹预测、路径规划、LiDAR感知等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

This study investigated drivers' responses to three types of driving hazards (anticipation, complexity, and surprise) during a simulated drive, considering variations in hazard perception, cognitive load, cue utilisation, and visual attention. Drivers recorded the shortest brake response distances for anticipation (i.e. cued) hazards, intermediate distances for complexity (i.e. multi-cue) hazards, and the longest for surprise (i.e. uncued) hazards. Although cognitive load did not differ across hazard types nor levels of cue utilisation, attention metrics such as fixation duration and time to first fixation varied significantly depending on hazard predictability and complexity. Cue utilisation did not influence cognitive load nor visual attention but was associated with earlier braking responses for complexity hazards, suggesting its relevance in situations requiring the integration of multiple cues. These findings may inform driver training programs and advanced driver assistance systems by supporting interventions that align with drivers' perceptual-cognitive abilities and the demands of different driving environments.

Links and sources

• PDF from original source

Comments