CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 205Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyTraffic and Road SafetyAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Alarm effectiveness in driver-centred collision-warning systems

PARASURAMAN, R., HANCOCK, P. A., OLOFINBOBA, O.·1997·Ergonomics
DOI 10.1080/001401397188224
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The potential use of systems that seek to communicate a warning of impending collision directly to the driver is examined. Technological advances in collision-warning systems include reliable, low-cost radars, sensors with low noise levels, and the development of accurate detection algorithms for particular crash types, e.g. rear-end collisions. However, fundamental practical constraints make perfect sensor detection difficult to achieve. Imperfect detection conflates the false alarm rate and experience with other technologies confirms driver aversion to false warnings. Although sensitive alarm systems with high detection rates and low false alarm rates have been developed, the posterior probability of a collision given an alarm can be quite low because of the low base rate of collision events. As a result, only a small proportion of alarms will represent true collision scenarios. These and other factors can conspire to reduce alarm effectiveness in collision-warning systems. The problem is illustrated analytically and potential solutions are advanced.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/001401397188224

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. CASEY S., 1993, Set Phasers on Stun, 89
  2. CORCORAN D. W. J., 1972, Effects of computer reliability and ‘dependent’ versus ‘independent’ decisions, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 52, 1613
  3. HANOWSKI R. J., 1994, An information clearinghouse conceptual design: a system for meeting crash avoidance research needs relevant to older drivers. Final report
  4. JANSSEN W., 1994, Proceedings of the International Ergonomics Association, Vol. 4, Ergonomics and Design, 179
  5. KNIPLING R. R., 1993, Assessment of IVHS countermeasures for collision avoidance: rear-end crashes
  6. PARASURAMAN R., 1996, Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications
  7. SCHUMANN J., 1993, Vision in Vehicles IV, 321
  8. 10.1037/0003-066X.47.4.522 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–205 of 205

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
PARASURAMAN, R., HANCOCK, P. A., & OLOFINBOBA, O.
Affiliations
Catholic University of America (US)
ORCID
Venue
Ergonomics
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1997-03
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
390-399
ISSN
  • 0014-0139 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-5847
DOI
10.1080/001401397188224
OpenAlex
W2119374926
Cited by
205
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
9.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ergonomics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Traffic and Road Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Keywords
collision warning systems, false alarm rate, driver distraction
MeSH terms
Accidents, Traffic, Algorithms, Decision Support Techniques, Equipment Design, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review