The Effect of Time Constraints on Older and Younger Driver Decisions to Turn at Intersections Using a Modified Change Blindness Paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After age 75, the risk of intersection accident involvement for older drivers increases for most intersection maneuvers. Failure to yield right-of-way and violation of traffic controls are common citations. Previous research has argued that age-related declines in attentional breadth and switching can discriminate between those who are and are not more likely to be in an accident. The present study examined the effect of time constraints on older and younger driver intersection decisions. It was expected that less time to decide, process and act upon intersection decisions would adversely affect older drivers more so than younger drivers. The change blindness or flicker paradigm was modified to address these questions (see, e.g., Rensink, et al., 1997). Typically, an image (A) is alternated with a modified image (A’) each for a short duration (250 ms) with a blank field or mask (80 ms) between A and A’. In the present study, a focus screen (or prime) that indicated the expected direction of travel (i.e., left, right, or straight) was added prior to the alternation of images. Forty-eight images were selected from 2500 intersection approaches in Calgary, Winnipeg and Montreal that were filmed using a digital camera during the day. Photoshop was used to create the A’ images by manipulating a variety of elements including pedestrians, vehicles, signs, and signals. The goal of the participant was to decide if the indicated direction of travel in the pair of intersection images was safe (press accelerator) or not (press brake). Sixteen younger (M = 22.3) and 16 older drivers (M = 73.6) drivers were screened for visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and medication use. Length of image alternation was the primary independent variable (4 and 8 s). As expected, older drivers were more likely to miss intersection changes at shorter exposure durations than younger drivers. A number of qualitative probes were also collected that clearly illustrate the contextual demands of intersections on attention. The implications of the results for intersection design and older driver selective attention are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".