3116 Driver's response to individualised alarm timing for forward collision warning systems

Abe, Genya; Itoh, Makoto · 2007 · Crossref

DOI: 10.1299/jsmetld.2007.16.305

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates the effectiveness of individualized alarm timing for forward collision warning systems (FCWS), aiming to reduce accidents caused by driver inattention. The research addresses the problem that fixed alarm thresholds may be too early or too late for specific drivers, potentially reducing system trust or effectiveness. The authors hypothesize that adapting alarm timing to individual driving styles—specifically the timing of accelerator release and brake implementation—can minimize the discrepancy between driver risk perception and system warning, thereby enhancing preventive safety. The study employed a two-phase experimental design using a motion-based driving simulator. Eighteen participants with standard driver’s licenses were involved. In Experiment 1, participants performed car-following tasks on a simulated two-lane highway under four conditions defined by following speed (60 km/h or 100 km/h) and lead vehicle deceleration (0.39G or 0.65G). The goal was to measure individual baseline reaction times for accelerator release and brake initiation without any warnings. In Experiment 2, the same participants were exposed to FCWS warnings. Two individualized alarm timings were tested: Timing A, set based on the individual’s average accelerator release time, and Timing B, set based on the individual’s average brake implementation time. Both timings were adjusted to be slightly earlier than the individual’s mean reaction time to ensure a warning margin. Participants completed trials with these warnings, and their subjective trust in the system and objective driving responses were recorded. The results indicated significant individual differences in both accelerator release and brake initiation times, which were influenced by driving conditions. Regarding system trust, alarms triggered at the accelerator release timing (Timing A) received significantly higher trust ratings compared to those triggered at the brake implementation timing (Timing B). However, the study found that for drivers with extreme driving characteristics—such as those who brake very early or very late—adapting the alarm solely to brake implementation timing could impair the system's effectiveness. Objectively, the presence of warnings, particularly Timing B, reduced the variance in accelerator release times, leading to more consistent driver behavior. While Timing A had less impact on the mean accelerator release time, it successfully standardized the timing of accelerator release across drivers, contributing to collision avoidance. The significance of this research lies in demonstrating that while individualized alarm timing is generally acceptable and can improve driver consistency, the choice of adaptation metric matters. Timing based on accelerator release fosters greater trust and consistent early action, whereas timing based on brake implementation may fail for drivers with atypical braking habits. The findings suggest that FCWS design should consider individual driving styles but must account for outliers to avoid reduced effectiveness. This contributes to the development of more adaptive and trusted driver support systems.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• feedback modes
• auditory warnings