专家对与安全驾驶有关的情境意识评估的意见

IF 3.5 2区 工程技术 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour Pub Date : 2024-11-26 DOI:10.1016/j.trf.2024.11.011
Rins de Zwart , Reinier J. Jansen , Cheryl Bolstad , Mica R. Endsley , Petya Ventsislavova , Joost de Winter , Mark S. Young
{"title":"专家对与安全驾驶有关的情境意识评估的意见","authors":"Rins de Zwart ,&nbsp;Reinier J. Jansen ,&nbsp;Cheryl Bolstad ,&nbsp;Mica R. Endsley ,&nbsp;Petya Ventsislavova ,&nbsp;Joost de Winter ,&nbsp;Mark S. Young","doi":"10.1016/j.trf.2024.11.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The use of situation awareness (SA) measures to assess relative safety in driving is common, with higher levels of SA being interpreted as safer. These relative interpretations do not allow researchers to determine whether the level of SA could be considered “safe” or “unsafe”. In contrast to such interpretations based on relative performance, the current position paper explores the potential for a normative interpretation of situation awareness with regard to safety assessment in driving. A series of expert interviews yielded viewpoints on the current relation between SA and safe driving, theoretical underpinnings for a normative approach, and potential actions towards an SA criterion for safe or unsafe driving. Methodological challenges regarding a normative approach are discussed together with considerations towards a weighted criterion-based approach to SA. The selection of SA requirements relevant for safety and the differentiation and weighting of these requirements on high and lower importance is presented. A method towards objective determination of relevance and weight of SA requirements may increase the usefulness of SA measures for assessment of safety in a driving context.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48355,"journal":{"name":"Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour","volume":"108 ","pages":"Pages 54-72"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When is more actually better? expert opinions on assessment of situation awareness in relation to safe driving\",\"authors\":\"Rins de Zwart ,&nbsp;Reinier J. Jansen ,&nbsp;Cheryl Bolstad ,&nbsp;Mica R. Endsley ,&nbsp;Petya Ventsislavova ,&nbsp;Joost de Winter ,&nbsp;Mark S. Young\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.trf.2024.11.011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The use of situation awareness (SA) measures to assess relative safety in driving is common, with higher levels of SA being interpreted as safer. These relative interpretations do not allow researchers to determine whether the level of SA could be considered “safe” or “unsafe”. In contrast to such interpretations based on relative performance, the current position paper explores the potential for a normative interpretation of situation awareness with regard to safety assessment in driving. A series of expert interviews yielded viewpoints on the current relation between SA and safe driving, theoretical underpinnings for a normative approach, and potential actions towards an SA criterion for safe or unsafe driving. Methodological challenges regarding a normative approach are discussed together with considerations towards a weighted criterion-based approach to SA. The selection of SA requirements relevant for safety and the differentiation and weighting of these requirements on high and lower importance is presented. A method towards objective determination of relevance and weight of SA requirements may increase the usefulness of SA measures for assessment of safety in a driving context.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48355,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour\",\"volume\":\"108 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 54-72\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847824003139\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847824003139","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

使用态势感知(SA)测量方法来评估驾驶的相对安全性很常见,态势感知水平越高越安全。这些相对解释并不能让研究人员确定 SA 水平是 "安全 "还是 "不安全"。与这种基于相对表现的解释不同,本立场文件探讨了在驾驶安全评估方面对情境意识进行规范性解释的可能性。通过一系列专家访谈,我们了解了当前安全驾驶意识与安全驾驶之间的关系、规范方法的理论基础以及安全驾驶或不安全驾驶意识标准的潜在行动。此外,还讨论了规范性方法所面临的方法论挑战,以及基于加权标准的 SA 方法的考虑因素。介绍了与安全相关的 SA 要求的选择,以及这些要求在高重要性和低重要性方面的区别和权重。客观确定安全标准要求的相关性和权重的方法可提高安全标准措施在驾驶安全评估中的实用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
When is more actually better? expert opinions on assessment of situation awareness in relation to safe driving
The use of situation awareness (SA) measures to assess relative safety in driving is common, with higher levels of SA being interpreted as safer. These relative interpretations do not allow researchers to determine whether the level of SA could be considered “safe” or “unsafe”. In contrast to such interpretations based on relative performance, the current position paper explores the potential for a normative interpretation of situation awareness with regard to safety assessment in driving. A series of expert interviews yielded viewpoints on the current relation between SA and safe driving, theoretical underpinnings for a normative approach, and potential actions towards an SA criterion for safe or unsafe driving. Methodological challenges regarding a normative approach are discussed together with considerations towards a weighted criterion-based approach to SA. The selection of SA requirements relevant for safety and the differentiation and weighting of these requirements on high and lower importance is presented. A method towards objective determination of relevance and weight of SA requirements may increase the usefulness of SA measures for assessment of safety in a driving context.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
14.60%
发文量
239
审稿时长
71 days
期刊介绍: Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour focuses on the behavioural and psychological aspects of traffic and transport. The aim of the journal is to enhance theory development, improve the quality of empirical studies and to stimulate the application of research findings in practice. TRF provides a focus and a means of communication for the considerable amount of research activities that are now being carried out in this field. The journal provides a forum for transportation researchers, psychologists, ergonomists, engineers and policy-makers with an interest in traffic and transport psychology.
期刊最新文献
Investigating the psychometrics of a new tool for evaluating motivational factors and their relationship with stunts among adolescent male cyclists in Isfahan, Iran When is more actually better? expert opinions on assessment of situation awareness in relation to safe driving Unraveling the complex interplay between curved tunnels and drivers’ physiological responses: An HRV perspective Decision modeling for automated driving in dilemmas based on bidirectional value alignment of moral theory values and fair human moral values Is physical literacy associated with active transportation among children? A general mixed model analysis across twelve schools
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1