MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1990668082 · doi:10.1167/3.9.604

Visual motion adaptation can impair decision making in driving

2010· article· en· W1990668082 on OpenAlexaff
Rob Gray, D. Regan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIllusionClosing (real estate)Front (military)Computer scienceCollisionStaringAdaptation (eye)SimulationMotion (physics)Driving simulatorArtificial intelligenceComputer securityPsychologyCognitive psychologyEngineeringCommunicationNeuroscienceLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drivers are often faced with decisions, which have potentially life-threatening consequences. Accident reports indicate that errors in decision-making during driving (e.g., deciding whether or not to pull out in front of another vehicle) are the probable cause of the majority of accidents on our roadways. One possible source of these errors of judgment is that in some situations the information provided by the human visual system is inaccurate. We have previously shown that staring straight ahead during simulated driving on a straight open road can give the driver the illusion that the time to collision with other vehicles is longer than it really is. This effect occurs because the neural mechanisms in the human visual system sensitive to time to collision with an approaching vehicle become adapted to closing speed. Here we show that this closing speed aftereffect can impair the ability of a driver to decide whether there is sufficient time to (i) overtake another vehicle on the highway and (ii) execute a left-turn in front of oncoming traffic. Closing speed adaptation resulted in decisions that were delayed, of higher risk, and more variable.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→