Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Participants
Analysis
Results
References
All Topics
Psychology
Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Steering is initiated based on error accumulation

Profile image of Richard WilkieRichard Wilkie

2022, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

https://doi.org/10.1037/XHP0000970
visibility

…

description

35 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Vehicle control by humans is possible because the central nervous system is capable of using visual information to produce complex sensorimotor actions. Drivers must monitor errors and initiate steering corrections of appropriate magnitude and timing to maintain a safe lane position. The perceptual mechanisms determining how a driver processes visual information and initiates steering corrections remain unclear. Previous research suggests two potential alternative mechanisms for responding to errors: (i) perceptual evidence (error) satisficing fixed constant thresholds (Threshold), or (ii) the integration of perceptual evidence over time (Accumulator). To distinguish between these mechanisms an experiment was conducted using a computer-generated steering correction paradigm. Drivers (N=20) steered towards an intermittently appearing 'road-line' that varied in position and orientation with respect to the driver's position and trajectory. One key prediction from a Threshold framework is a fixed absolute error response across conditions regardless of the rate of error development, whereas the Accumulator framework predicts that drivers would respond to larger absolute errors when the error signal develops at a faster rate. Results were consistent with an Accumulator framework, thus we propose that models of steering should integrate perceived control error over time in order to accurately capture human perceptual performance.

Related papers

The role of visual and nonvisual feedback in a vehicle steering task
Astros Chatziastros

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2007

This paper investigates vehicle steering control, focusing on the task of lane changing and the role of different sources of sensory feedback. Participants carried out two experiments in a fully instrumented, motion based simulator. Despite the high level of realism afforded by the simulator, participants were unable to complete a lane change in the absence of visual feedback. When asked to produce the steering movements required to change lanes and turn a corner, participants produced remarkably similar behavior in each case, revealing a misconception of how a lane-change maneuver is normally executed. Finally, participants were asked to change lanes in a fixed-based simulator, in the presence of intermittent visual information. Normal steering behavior could be restored using brief but suitably timed exposure to visual information. Our data suggest that vehicle steering control can be characterized as a series of unidirectional, open-loop steering movements, each punctuated by a brief visual update.

View PDFchevron_right
A two-point visual control model of steering
Rob Gray

Perception-London, 2004

How do drivers steer their car around the curves of a winding road? On the surface, this would seem to be an effortless task that can be achieved simply by noting the present position of the car in the lane and steering toward the center to correct lateral error. However, owing to inherent delays between perception and action and the fact that the driver's attention can be diverted from the steering task for (possibly) extended periods of time, this simple error correction strategy is not effective at fast driving speeds. Instead, steering has been described as a two-level control strategy (eg Donges 1978; Land and Horwood 1995) that utilizes both a`near' and a`far' region of the roadway to produce successful navigation: information from the far region helps to preview the upcoming trajectory of the road and (possibly) to compensate for this trajectory, and information from the near region helps to correct the current position of the car within the lane boundaries.

View PDFchevron_right
Sustained sensorimotor control as intermittent decisions about prediction errors: computational framework and application to ground vehicle steering
Erwin Boer

Biological cybernetics, 2018

A conceptual and computational framework is proposed for modelling of human sensorimotor control and is exemplified for the sensorimotor task of steering a car. The framework emphasises control intermittency and extends on existing models by suggesting that the nervous system implements intermittent control using a combination of (1) motor primitives, (2) prediction of sensory outcomes of motor actions, and (3) evidence accumulation of prediction errors. It is shown that approximate but useful sensory predictions in the intermittent control context can be constructed without detailed forward models, as a superposition of simple prediction primitives, resembling neurobiologically observed corollary discharges. The proposed mathematical framework allows straightforward extension to intermittent behaviour from existing one-dimensional continuous models in the linear control and ecological psychology traditions. Empirical data from a driving simulator are used in model-fitting analyses ...

View PDFchevron_right
Risky driving behavior: A consequence of motion adaptation for visually guided motor action.
Rob Gray

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human …, 2000

The authors examined the effect of adaptation to expansion on overtaking maneuvers in a driving simulator. Following driving on a straight empty toad for 5 rain, drivers initiated overtaking substantially later (220-510 ms) than comparable maneuvers made following viewing a static scene or following 5 min of curve driving. Following adaptation to contraction (produced by driving backward), observers initialed overtaking significantly sooner. The removal of the road texture significantly reduced the size of the adaptation effect The authors propose that these changes in overtaking behavior are due to misestimation of the time headway produced by local adaptation of looming detectors that signal motion-in-depth for objects near the focus of expansion. This adaptation effect may increase the risk of rear-end collisions during highway driving.

View PDFchevron_right
Eye–steering coordination in natural driving
Derek Ashford

Experimental Brain Research, 2007

When driving along a winding road, eye movements and steering are tightly linked; the driver looks across to the inside kerb of an approaching bend some time before turning the steering wheel. With the eyes leading, the oculomotor controller assists the neural centres controlling steering; prevention of any eye movements correlated with steering impairs driving, so the coordination is crucial for safety. A key question is therefore what are the limits of acceptable variation in timing and degree of coordination. Over a period of continuous driving on the open road, how much does the relative timing and degree of coordination between eye and steering movements vary? A related question is how brief a period of driving will suffice to measure these coordination parameters. Drivers' eye movements and steering were measured over different time periods ranging from 15 s to 6 min epochs of natural driving along a winding country road to establish the variability in coordination and the minimum time period required to characterise it. We show here that brief periods of driving, 30 s or less, are inadequate for describing eye-steering coordination. But a minute of driving yields an accurate description much of the time; and 2 min is sufficient both to accurately describe this relationship and to show that it is highly consistent for a given individual, and for different people driving the same route.

View PDFchevron_right
Coming back into the loop: Drivers’ perceptual-motor performance in critical events after automated driving
Oliver Carsten

Accident Analysis & Prevention

This driving simulator study, conducted as part of the EU AdaptIVe project, investigated drivers' performance in critical traffic events, during the resumption of control from an automated driving system. Prior to the critical events, using a between-participant design, 75 drivers were exposed to various screen manipulations that varied the amount of available visual information from the road environment and automation state, which aimed to take them progressively further 'out-of-the-loop' (OoTL). The current paper presents an analysis of the timing, type, and rate of drivers' collision avoidance response, also investigating how these were influenced by the criticality of the unfolding situation. Results showed that the amount of visual information available to drivers during automation impacted on how quickly they resumed manual control, with less information associated with slower takeover times, however, this did not influence the timing of when drivers began a collision avoidance manoeuvre. Instead, the observed behaviour is in line with recent accounts emphasising the role of scenario kinematics in the timing of driver avoidance response. When considering collision incidents in particular, avoidance manoeuvres were initiated when the situation criticality exceeded an Inverse Time To Collision value of ≈ 0.3 s −1. Our results suggest that takeover time and timing and quality of avoidance response appear to be largely independent, and while long takeover time did not predict collision outcome, kinematically late initiation of avoidance did. Hence, system design should focus on achieving kinematically early avoidance initiation, rather than short takeover times.

View PDFchevron_right
Perceptual processes used by drivers during overtaking in a driving simulator
Rob Gray

Human Factors: The Journal of the Human …, 2005

View PDFchevron_right
Cognitive Driver Distraction Improves Straight Lane Keeping: A Cybernetic Control Theoretic Explanation
Erwin Boer

IFAC-PapersOnLine

Experimental data revealed that drivers performing a visual secondary task exhibited deteriorated lane keeping performance, but that the same drivers performing a cognitive secondary exhibited an improvement in lane keeping compared to baseline driving. In this paper we present a computational cybernetic driver model that characterizes the effect of difference in eye fixation durations between on and off road glances across the three task conditions on straight lane keeping performance. The model uses perceptual cues as control input, maintains internal representations of these cues across fixations through Bayesian updating, and each time a change in cue magnitude is perceived based on mechanisms akin to signal detection theory a change in control is applied. The model is shown to be able to capture the experimental results encouragingly well. The model also sheds light on the relative magnitude of lane keeping performance degradation caused by glancing away from the road and the fact that internal representations are degraded each time a saccade takes place. The adopted approach to modeling driver perception during and across fixations is expected to lead to new insights into the effects that various in-vehicle activities have on driving performance and risk.

View PDFchevron_right
Studies on Human Vehicle Control
Hans Godthelp

1984

View PDFchevron_right
Metacognitive judgements of perceptual-motor steering performance
Richard Wilkie

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2018

Control of skilled actions requires rapid information sampling and processing, which may largely be carried out subconsciously. However, individuals often need to make conscious strategic decisions that ideally would be based upon accurate knowledge of performance. Here, we determined the extent to which individuals have explicit awareness of their steering performance (conceptualised as "metacognition"). Participants steered in a virtual environment along a bending road while attempting to keep within a central demarcated target zone. Task demands were altered by manipulating locomotor speed (fast/slow) and the target zone (narrow/wide). All participants received continuous visual feedback about position in zone, and one sub-group was given additional auditory warnings when exiting/entering the zone. At the end of each trial, participants made a metacognitive evaluation: the proportion of the trial they believed was spent in the zone. Overall, although evaluations broadly...

View PDFchevron_right

References (65)

  1. Asai, Y., Tasaka, Y., Nomura, K., Nomura, T., Casadio, M., & Morasso, P. (2009). A model of postural control in quiet standing: Robust compensation of delay-induced instability using intermittent activation of feedback control. PLoS ONE, 4(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006169
  2. Bates, D, Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Version, S. W.-, & 2018, U. (2019). Package "lme4." In researchgate.net. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sorour_Karimi/post/How_do_I_statistically_compa re_cell_proliferation_rates2/attachment/5d119e3e3843b0b982582820/AS%3A7735315 87604482%401561435710646/download/lme4.pdf
  3. Bates, Douglas, Mächler, M., Bolker, B. M., & Walker, S. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed- effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
  4. Beall, A. C., & Loomis, J. M. (1996). Visual control of steering without course information. Perception, 25(4), 481-494. https://doi.org/10.1068/p250481
  5. Benderius, O., & Markkula, G. (2014). Evidence for a fundamental property of steering. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2014-Janua(1), 884-888. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581186
  6. Billington, J., Field, D. T., Wilkie, R. M., & Wann, J. P. (2010). An fMRI Study of Parietal Cortex Involvement in the Visual Guidance of Locomotion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(6), 1495-1507. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018728
  7. Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection and Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika, 52(3), 345-370. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294361
  8. Brenner, E., & Smeets, J. B. J. (1997). Fast responses of the human hand to changes in target position. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29(4), 297-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222899709600017
  9. Brown, S. D., & Heathcote, A. (2008). The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psychology, 57(3), 153-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.12.002
  10. Brown, S., & Heathcote, A. (2005). A ballistic model of choice response time. Psychological Review, 112(1), 117-128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.117
  11. Cisek, P. (2019). Resynthesizing behavior through phylogenetic refinement. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 81(7), 2265-2287. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019- 01760-1
  12. de Lafuente, V., Jazayeri, M., & Shadlen, M. N. (2015). Representation of accumulating evidence for a decision in two parietal areas. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(10), 4306- 4318. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2451-14.2015
  13. DinparastDjadid, A., D. Lee, J., Schwarz, C., Venkatraman, V., L. Brown, T., Gasper, J., & Gunaratne, P. (2018). After Vehicle Automation Fails: Analysis of Driver Steering Behavior after a Sudden Deactivation of Control. International Journal of Automotive Engineering, 9(4), 208-214. https://doi.org/10.20485/jsaeijae.9.4_208
  14. Dorokhova, L., & Imperio, M. D. (2020). Rise Dynamics Determines Tune Perception in French : the Case of Questions and Continuations. Hal.Archives-Ouvertes.Fr, (1), 691- 695. Retrieved from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02476914
  15. Gabrielli, F., Paganelli, S., Schiro, J., Pudlo, P., & Djemai, M. (2012). Driving simulation protocol to determine steering strategies. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 42(5), 469-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2012.06.002
  16. Gawthrop, P., Gollee, H., & Loram, I. (2015). Intermittent control in man and machine. In Event-Based Control and Signal Processing (pp. 281-349). https://doi.org/10.1201/b19013
  17. Gawthrop, P., Lee, K. Y., Halaki, M., & O'Dwyer, N. (2013). Human stick balancing: An intermittent control explanation. Biological Cybernetics, 107(6), 637-652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-013-0564-4
  18. Gawthrop, P., Loram, I., Lakie, M., & Gollee, H. (2011). Intermittent control: A computational theory of human control. Biological Cybernetics, 104(1-2), 31-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-010-0416-4
  19. GIBSON, J. J. (1958). VISUALLY CONTROLLED LOCOMOTION AND VISUAL ORIENTATION IN ANIMALS. British Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 182-194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1958.tb00656.x
  20. Green, P., & Macleod, C. J. (2016). SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(4), 493-498. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12504
  21. Hanneton, S., Berthoz, A., Droulez, J., & Slotine, J. J. E. (1997a). Does the brain use sliding variables for the control of movements? Biological Cybernetics, 77(6), 381-393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004220050398
  22. Hanneton, S., Berthoz, A., Droulez, J., & Slotine, J. J. E. (1997b). Does the brain use sliding variables for the control of movements? Biological Cybernetics, 77(6), 381-393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004220050398
  23. Hoenig, J. M., & Heisey, D. M. (2001). The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. American Statistician, 55(1), 19-24. https://doi.org/10.1198/000313001300339897
  24. Huk, A. C., & Shadlen, M. N. (2005). Neural activity in macaque parietal cortex reflects temporal integration of visual motion signals during perceptual decision making. Journal of Neuroscience, 25(45), 10420-10436. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4684- 04.2005
  25. Kelly, S. P., & O'Connell, R. G. (2013). Internal and External Influences on the Rate of Sensory Evidence Accumulation in the Human Brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(50), 19434-19441. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.3355-13.2013
  26. Kountouriotis, G. K., Mole, C. D., Merat, N., & Wilkie, R. M. (2016). The need for speed: Global optic flow speed influences steering. Royal Society Open Science, 3(5). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160096
  27. Kountouriotis, G. K., Shire, K. A., Mole, C. D., Gardner, P. H., Merat, N., & Wilkie, R. M. G. (2013). Optic flow asymmetries bias high-speed steering along roads. Journal of Vision, 13(10). https://doi.org/10.1167/13.10.23
  28. Kountouriotis, G. K., & Wilkie, R. M. (2013). Displaying optic flow to simulate locomotion: Comparing heading and steering. I-Perception, 4(5), 333-346. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0590
  29. Kovaceva, J., Bärgman, J., & Dozza, M. (2020). A comparison of computational driver models using naturalistic and test-track data from cyclist-overtaking manoeuvres. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 75, 87-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.09.020
  30. Lamble, D., Laakso, M., & Summala, H. (1999). Detection thresholds in car following situations and peripheral vision: Implications for positioning of visually demanding in-car displays. Ergonomics, 42(6), 807-815. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401399185306
  31. Land, M. F., & Hayhoe, M. (2001). In what ways do eye movements contribute to everyday activities? Vision Research, 41(25-26), 3559-3565. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042- 6989(01)00102-X
  32. Land, M., & Horwood, J. (1995). Which parts of the road guide steering? Nature, 377(6547), 339-340. https://doi.org/10.1038/377339a0
  33. Lappi, O., & Mole, C. (2018). Visuomotor control, eye movements, and steering: A unified approach for incorporating feedback, feedforward, and internal models. Psychological Bulletin, 144(10), 981-1001. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000150
  34. Lee, D. N. (1976). A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time to collision. Perception, 5(4), 437-459. https://doi.org/10.1068/p050437
  35. Llewellyn, K. R. (1971). Visual guidance of locomotion. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 91(2), 245-261. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031788
  36. Lo, S., & Andrews, S. (2015). To transform or not to transform: using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01171
  37. Loram, I. D., Lakie, M., & Gawthrop, P. J. (2009). Visual control of stable and unstable loads: What is the feedback delay and extent of linear time-invariant control? Journal of Physiology, 587(6), 1343-1365. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2008.166173
  38. Luke, S. G. (2017). Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. Behavior Research Methods, 49(4), 1494-1502. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0809-y
  39. Markkula, G. (2014). Modeling driver control behavior in both routine and near-accident driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2014-Janua(1), 879-883. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581185
  40. Markkula, G., Boer, E., Romano, R., & Merat, N. (2018). Sustained sensorimotor control as intermittent decisions about prediction errors: computational framework and application to ground vehicle steering. Biological Cybernetics, 112(3), 181-207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-017-0743-9
  41. Markkula, G., Uludag, Z., McGilchrist Wilkie, R., & Billington, J. (2021). Accumulation of continuously time-varying sensory evidence constrains neural and behavioral responses in human collision threat detection. PLoS Computational Biology, 17(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009096
  42. Markkula, G., & Zgonnikov, A. (2019). Evidence Accumulation Account of Human Operators' Decisions in Intermittent Control During Inverted Pendulum Balancing. Eprints.Whiterose.Ac.Uk, 716-721. https://doi.org/10.1109/smc.2018.00130
  43. Martínez-García, M., Zhang, Y., & Gordon, T. (2016). Modeling Lane Keeping by a Hybrid Open-Closed-Loop Pulse Control Scheme. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 12(6), 2256-2265. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2016.2619064
  44. Mole, C., Pekkanen, J., Sheppard, W., Louw, T., Romano, R., Merat, N., … Wilkie, R. (2020). Predicting takeover response to silent automated vehicle failures. PLOS ONE, 15(11), e0242825. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242825
  45. Nash, C. J., & Cole, D. J. (2018). Modelling the influence of sensory dynamics on linear and nonlinear driver steering control. Vehicle System Dynamics, 56(5), 689-718. https://doi.org/10.1080/00423114.2017.1326615
  46. O'Connell, R. G., Dockree, P., & Kelly, S. P. (2012). A supramodal accumulation-to-bound signal. Nature.Com. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v15/n12/abs/nn.3248.html
  47. Polanía, R., Krajbich, I., Grueschow, M., & Ruff, C. C. (2014). Neural Oscillations and Synchronization Differentially Support Evidence Accumulation in Perceptual and Value- Based Decision Making. Neuron, 82(3), 709-720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.03.014
  48. Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59-108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59
  49. Ratcliff, R., Smith, P. L., Brown, S. D., & McKoon, G. (2016). Diffusion Decision Model: Current Issues and History. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 20, pp. 260-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.01.007
  50. Salvucci, D. D., & Gray, R. (2004). A two-point visual control model of steering. Perception, 33(10), 1233-1248. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5343
  51. Salvucci, D. D., & Liu, A. (2002). The time course of a lane change: Driver control and eye- movement behavior. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5(2), 123-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478(02)00011-6
  52. Savitzky, A., & Golay, M. J. E. (1964). Smoothing and Differentiation of Data by Simplified Least Squares Procedures. Analytical Chemistry, 36(8), 1627-1639. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60214a047
  53. Schafer, R. W. (2011). What is a savitzky-golay filter? IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 28(4), 111-117. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2011.941097
  54. Shadlen, M. N., & Newsome, W. T. (1996). Motion perception: Seeing and deciding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 93(2), 628-633. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.2.628
  55. Shadlen, M. N., & Newsome, W. T. (2001). Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area LIP) of the rhesus monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology, 86(4), 1916-1936. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.2001.86.4.1916
  56. Twomey, D. M., Murphy, P. R., Kelly, S. P., & O'Connell, R. G. (2015). The classic P300 encodes a build-to-threshold decision variable. European Journal of Neuroscience, 42(1), 1636-1643. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12936
  57. Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2001). The time course of perceptual choice: The leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychological Review, 108(3), 550-592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.550
  58. van der El, K., Pool, D. M., & Mulder, M. (2019). Measuring and modeling driver steering behavior: From compensatory tracking to curve driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 61, 337-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.09.011
  59. Warren, W. H., Zosh, W. D., Sahuc, S., Duchon, A. P., & Kay, B. A. (2000). Optic flow vs. visual direction in the visual control of walking. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 41, S812. Retrieved from http://www.cog.brown.edu/Research/ven_lab/present/ww_arvo00.pdf
  60. Wilkie, R. M., & Wann, J. P. (2002). Driving as night falls: The contribution of retinal flow and visual direction to the control of steering. Current Biology, 12(23), 2014-2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(02)01337-4
  61. Wilkie, R. M., Wann, J. P., & Allison, R. S. (2008). Active Gaze, Visual Look-Ahead, and Locomotor Control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(5), 1150-1164. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.5.1150
  62. Wilkie, R., & Wann, J. (2003). Controlling Steering and Judging Heading: Retinal Flow, Visual Direction, and Extraretinal Information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 363-378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096- 1523.29.2.363
  63. Xue, Q., Markkula, G., Yan, X., & Merat, N. (2018). Using perceptual cues for brake response to a lead vehicle: Comparing threshold and accumulator models of visual looming. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 118, 114-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.06.006
  64. Yilmaz, E. H., & Warren, W. H. (1995). Visual Control of Braking: A Test of the τ Hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(5), 996- 1014. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.21.5.996
  65. Zgonnikov, A., Lubashevsky, I., Kanemoto, S., Miyazawa, T., & Suzuki, T. (2014). To react or not to react? Intrinsic stochasticity of human control in virtual stick balancing. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 11(99), 20140636-20140636. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.0636

Related papers

Error accumulation when steering toward curves
Courtney Goodridge

To steer a vehicle, humans must process incoming signals that provide information about their movement through the world. These signals are used to inform motor control responses that are appropriately timed and of the correct magnitude. However, the perceptual mechanisms determining how drivers process visual information remain unclear. Previous research has demonstrated that when steering toward a straight road-line, drivers accumulate perceptual evidence (error) over time to initiate steering action (Accumulator framework), rather than waiting for perceptual evidence to surpass time-independent fixed thresholds (Threshold framework). The more general case of steering around bends (with a requirement that the trajectory is adjusted to match the road curvature ahead) provides richer continuously varying information. The current experiment aims to establish whether the Accumulator framework provides a good description of human responses when steering toward curved road-lines. Using ...

View PDFchevron_right
The effect of visual degradation on anticipatory and compensatory steering control
Franck Mars, Ilja Frissen

The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2014

View PDFchevron_right
An Unexpected Role for Visual Feedback in Vehicle Steering Control
Heinrich Bülthoff

Current Biology, 2002

Spemannstraße 38 of the initial steering movement. What is more, when asked to act out turning a corner, they produced exactly Tü bingen Germany the same steering pattern, but with a larger maximum amplitude (means: 30.9Њ and 64.0Њ, respectively) (see 2 Perception and Motor Systems Lab School of Human Movement Studies the Supplementary Material available with this article online). In order to better understand the significance of University of Queensland Queensland, QLD 4072 this mistake, it is instructive to consider the relationship between steering wheel movement and lane position in Australia this type of task. conveys this relationship, revealing the biphasic nature of the task. The aim of this paper is to investigate whether an inability to imagine Summary the correct motor behavior transfers to an inability to complete the maneuver in a real driving situation. Our Some motor tasks can be completed, quite literally, results reveal that subjects do indeed make the same with our eyes shut. Most people can touch their nose mistakes in a driving simulator when no visual feedback without looking or reach for an object after only a brief is provided and that this reveals something fundamental glance at its location. This distinction leads to one of about how humans steer vehicles.

View PDFchevron_right
From vision to action: Experiments and models of steering control during driving
Jack Beusmans

Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance

Experienced drivers performed simple steering maneuvers in the absence of continuous visual input. Experiments conducted in a driving simulator assessed drivers' performance of lane corrections during brief visual occlusion and examined the visual cues that guide steering. The dependence of steering behavior on heading, speed, and lateral position at the start of the maneuver was measured. Drivers adjusted steering amplitude with heading and performed the maneuver more rapidly at higher speeds. These dependencies were unaffected by a 1.5-s visual occlusion at the start of the maneuver. Longer occlusions resulted in severe performance degradation. Two steering control models were developed to account for these findings. In the 1st, steering actions were coupled to perceptual variables such as lateral position and heading. In the 2nd, drivers pursued a virtual target in the scene. Both models yielded behavior that closely matches that of human drivers.

View PDFchevron_right
Understanding Drivers’ Steering Behavior: Chain And One-Time Corrections
Pujitha Gunaratne

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society ... Annual Meeting, 2018

Drivers' steering adjustments can be categorized into one-time and chain corrections. One-time corrections lead to no further steering corrections for a minimum of one second, while chain corrections have at least two consecutive steering actions. Chain corrections represent a novel indicator of steering instability. Evolving vehicle dynamics along with drivers' state and situational factors can cause these different correction types. In a driving simulator study, drivers' experienced different roadway widths with and without distraction. The results show that higher steering wheel angle values at the beginning or end of a correction lead to chain corrections and the duration of these corrections tends to be shorter than adjustments not leading to chain corrections. Exploring the underlying causes of different corrections can guide efforts to model drivers' control actions in recovering from distractions and in taking over control during automation failures.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Computer Science
  • Perception
  • Medicine
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved