MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058667559 · doi:10.1162/pres_a_00170

The Potential of Subliminal Information Displays to Change Driver Behavior

2014· article· en· W2058667559 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePRESENCE Virtual and Augmented Reality · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubliminal stimuliPerceptionComputer scienceCognitive psychologyTerminologyHuman–computer interactionComputer securityPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the long history of subliminal messages and perception, many contradictory results have been presented. One group of researchers suggests that subliminal interaction techniques improve human–computer interaction by reducing sensory workload, whereas others have found that subliminal perception does not work. In this paper, we want to challenge this prejudice by first defining a terminology and introducing a theoretical taxonomy of mental processing states, then reviewing and discussing the potential of subliminal approaches for different sensory channels, and finally recapitulating the findings from our studies on subliminally triggered behavior change. Our objective is to mitigate driving problems caused by excessive information. Therefore, this work focuses on subliminal techniques applied to driver–vehicle interaction to induce a nonconscious change in driver behavior. Based on a survey of related work which identified the potential of subliminal cues in driving, we conducted two user studies assessing their applicability in real-world situations. The first study evaluated whether subtle (subliminal) vibrations could promote economical driving, and the second exposed drivers to very briefly flashed visual stimuli to assess their potential to improve steering behavior. Our results suggest that subliminal approaches are indeed feasible to provide drivers with added driving support without dissipating attention resources. Despite the lack of general evidence for uniform effectiveness of such interfaces in all driving circumstances, we firmly believe that such interfaces are valuable since they may eventually prevent accidents, save lives, and even reduce fuel costs and CO 2 emissions for some drivers. For all these reasons, we are confident that subliminally driven interfaces will find their way into cars of the (near) future.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.309 · 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