ABSTRACT
Vibrotactile collision warning signals that create a sensation of motion across a driver's body result in faster brake reaction times (BRTs) to potential collision events. To date, however, such warnings have only simulated linear motion. We extended this research by exploring the effectiveness of collision warnings that incorporate vibrotactile patterns or "vibrotactile flow". In Experiment 1, expanding and contracting vibrotactile flow warnings were compared with a static warning (all tactors activated simultaneously) and a no warning condition in a car following scenario. Both vibrotactile flow warnings produced significantly faster BRTs than the static and no warning conditions. However, there was no directional effect. That is, there was no significant difference between contracting and expanding signals. Warnings that utilize vibrotactile flow therefore appear to provide an effective means of informing drivers about potential collision events. However, unlike comparable warnings utilizing linear motion, their effectiveness does not seem to depend on the precise relationship between the warning and collision events. Experiment 2 demonstrated that a tactile warning incorporating linear motion produced significantly faster BRTs than an expanding vibrotactile flow warning. Taken together, these results suggest that vibrotactile warnings that simulate linear motion may be more effective than vibrotactile flow warnings.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Four experiments were conducted in order to assess the effectiveness of dynamic vibrotactile collision-warning signals in potentially enhancing safe driving. BACKGROUND: Auditory neuroscience research has demonstrated that auditory signals that move toward a person are more salient than those that move away. If this looming effect were found to extend to the tactile modality, then it could be utilized in the context of in-car warning signal design. METHOD: The effectiveness of various vibrotactile warning signals was assessed using a simulated car-following task. The vibrotactile warning signals consisted of dynamic toward-/away-from-torso cues (Experiment 1), dynamic versus static vibrotactile cues (Experiment 2), looming-intensity- and constant-intensity-toward-torso cues (Experiment 3), and static cues presented on the hands or on the waist, having either a low or high vibration intensity (Experiment 4). RESULTS: Braking reaction times (BRTs) were significantly faster for toward-torso as compared to away-from-torso cues (Experiments 1 and 2) and static cues (Experiment 2). This difference could not have been attributed to differential responses to signals delivered to different body parts (i.e., the waist vs. hands; Experiment 4). Embedding a looming-intensity signal into the toward-torso signal did not result in any additional BRT benefits (Experiment 3). CONCLUSION: Dynamic vibrotactile cues that feel as though they are approaching the torso can be used to communicate information concerning external events, resulting in a significantly faster reaction time to potential collisions. APPLICATION: Dynamic vibrotactile warning signals that move toward the body offer great potential for the design of future in-car collision-warning system.
