Visual and steering behaviours during lane departures: a longitudinal study of interactions between lane departure warning system, driving task and driving experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lane Departure Warning Systems (LDWS) generate a warning in case of imminent lane departure. LDWS have proven to be effective and associated human-machine cooperation modelled. In this study, LDWS acceptance and its impact on visual and steering behaviour have been investigated over 6 weeks for novice and experienced drivers. Unprovoked lane departures were analysed along three driving tasks gradually more demanding. These observations were compared to a baseline condition without automation. The number of lane departures and their duration were dramatically reduced by LDWS, and a narrower visual spread of search during lane departure events was recorded. The findings confirmed LDWS effectiveness and suggested that these benefits are supported by visuo-attentional guidance. No specific influence of driving experience on LDWS was found, suggesting that similar cognitive processes are engaged with or without driving experience. Drivers’ acceptance of LDWS lowered after automation use, but LDWS effectiveness remained stable during prolonged use.Practitioner summary: Lane Departure Warning Systems (LDWS) have been designed to prevent lane departure crashes. Here, LDWS assessment over a 6-week period showed a major drop in the number of lane departure events increasing over time. LDWS effectiveness is supported by the guidance of drivers’ visual attention during lane departure events.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".