Warning Signal Design: A Key Human Factors Issue in an In-Vehicle Front-To-Rear-End Collision Warning System
Abstract
Warning signal effectiveness issues associated with the design of a front-to-rear-end collision warning system are discussed. Potential negative effects are that warnings may occur rarely, startling the driver and adding to cognitive load and stress, or alternatively, warnings may occur frequently and be ignored by the driver. To minimize negative effects, four design concepts are considered: (a) a graded sequence of warnings, from mild to severe, (b) a parallel change in modality, from visual to auditory, (c) individualization of warnings, and (d) a headway – distance to lead car – display.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The Experiment 1 results rule out a speed-accuracy trade-off account of the RT facilitation observed in Experiment 1.
“These results therefore rule out a speed-accuracy trade-off account of the RT facilitation observed in Experiment 1 (see [24]).”
From Assessing the Benefits of Multimodal Feedback on Dual-Task Performance under Demanding Conditions (2008) · cites this paper as [24]
The Experiment 2 results rule out a speed-accuracy trade-off account of the RT data.
“Therefore, the analysis of the results of Experiment 2 once again ruled out a speed-accuracy trade-off account of the RT data (see [24]).”
From Assessing the Benefits of Multimodal Feedback on Dual-Task Performance under Demanding Conditions (2008) · cites this paper as [24]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Alarm effectiveness in driver-centred collision-warning systems
PARASURAMAN, R., HANCOCK, P. A., & OLOFINBOBA, O. (1997) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/001401397188224 · Cited by 205 · see citing works
Assessing the Benefits of Multimodal Feedback on Dual-Task Performance under Demanding Conditions
Lee, J.-H., & Spence, C. (2008) · Electronic Workshops in Computing · doi:10.14236/ewic/hci2008.18 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
- Authors
- Horowitz, A. D., & Dingus, T. A.
- Affiliations
- General Motors (United States) (US)
- University of Idaho (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1992-10
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1011-1013
- ISSN
- 0163-5182 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1530125108
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 2.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Traffic and Road Safety
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Safety Warnings and Signage
- Keywords
- collision warning systems, driver cognitive load, driver stress, headway, inter-vehicle distance, driver distraction
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
