The effect of an occlusion-induced delay on braking behavior in critical situations: A driving simulator study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To share results of an experiment that used visual occlusion for a new purpose: inducing a waiting time. Background Senders was a leading figure in human factors. In his research on the visual demands of driving, he used occlusion techniques. Methods In a simulator experiment, we examined how drivers brake for different levels of urgency and different visual conditions. In three blocks (1 = brake lights, 2 = no brake lights, 3 = occlusion), drivers followed a vehicle at 13.4 or 33.4 m distance. At certain moments, the lead vehicle decelerated moderately (1.7 m/s 2 ) or strongly (6.5 m/s 2 ). In the occlusion condition, the screens blanked for 0.4 s (if 6.5 m/s 2 ) or 2.0 s (if 1.7 m/s 2 ) when the lead vehicle started to decelerate. Participants were instructed to brake only after the occlusion ended. Results The lack of brake lights caused a delayed response. In the occlusion condition, drivers adapted to the instructed late braking by braking harder. However, adaptation was not always possible: In the most urgent condition, most participants collided with the lead vehicle because the ego-vehicle’s deceleration limits were reached. In non-urgent conditions, some drivers braked unnecessarily hard. Furthermore, while waiting until the occlusion cleared, some drivers lightly touched the brake pedal. Conclusion This experimental design demonstrates how drivers (sometimes fail to) adjust their braking behavior to the criticality of the situation. Application The phenomena of biomechanical readiness and (inappropriate) dosing of the brake pedal may be relevant to safety, traffic flow, and ADAS design.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".