Cited by 129Older Adults Driving StudiesTraffic and Road SafetyHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety

Older Driver Failures of Attention at Intersections: Using Change Blindness Methods to Assess Turn Decision Accuracy

Caird, Jeff K., Edwards, Christopher J., Creaser, Janet I., Horrey, William J.·2005·Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Abstract

A modified version of the flicker technique to induce change blindness was used to examine the effects of time constraints on decision-making accuracy at intersections on a total of 62 young (18-25 years), middle-aged (26-64 years), young-old (65-73 years), and old-old (74+ years) drivers. Thirty-six intersection photographs were manipulated so that one object (i.e., pedestrian, vehicle, sign, or traffic control device) in the scene would change when the images were alternated for either 5 or 8 s using the modified flicker method. Young and middle-aged drivers made significantly more correct decisions than did young-old and old-old drivers. Logistic regression analysis of the data indicated that age and/or time were significant predictors of decision performance in 14 of the 36 intersections. Actual or potential applications of this research include driving assessment and crash investigation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1518/0018720054679542

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • This idea seems somewhat aligned with the change blindness concept because the users could not find the changes between different screens, and so there was disorientation beyond navigation.

    “This idea seems somewhat aligned with the change blindness concept [55] because the users could not find the changes between different screens, and so there was disorientation beyond navigation.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caird, J. K., Edwards, C. J., Creaser, J. I., & Horrey, W. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Venue
Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Published
2005-06
Volume
47
Issue
2
Pages
235-249
ISSN
  • 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-8181
OpenAlex
W2012474707
Cited by
129
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
18.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Transport Canada
  • Centre for Transportation Engineering and Planning
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Older Adults Driving Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Traffic and Road Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Keywords
older drivers, attention, intersections, change blindness, age differences, time constraints, driving assessment, crash investigation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aging, Alberta, Attention, Automobile Driving, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Time Factors, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models

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