Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37531322›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Trial-by-trial feedback fails to improve the consideration of acceleration in visual time-to-collision estimation.

Marlene Wessels, Heiko Hecht, Thirsa Huisman, Daniel Oberfeld

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marlene WesselsJohannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8720-7837
Heiko HechtJohannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Thirsa HuismanJohannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7650-5377
Daniel OberfeldJohannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6710-3309

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When judging the time-to-collision (TTC) of visually presented accelerating vehicles, untrained observers do not adequately account for acceleration (second-order information). Instead, their estimations only rely on vehicle distance and velocity (first-order information). As a result, they systemically overestimate the TTC for accelerating objects, which represents a potential risk for pedestrians in traffic situations because it might trigger unsafe road-crossing behavior. Can training help reduce these estimation errors? In this study, we tested whether training with trial-by-trial feedback about the signed deviation of the estimated from the actual TTC can improve TTC estimation accuracy for accelerating vehicles. Using a prediction-motion paradigm, we measured the estimated TTCs of twenty participants for constant-velocity and accelerated vehicle approaches, from a pedestrian's perspective in a VR traffic simulation. The experiment included three blocks, of which only the second block provided trial-by-trial feedback about the TTC estimation accuracy. Participants adjusted their estimations during and after the feedback, but they failed to differentiate between accelerated and constant-velocity approaches. Thus, the feedback did not help them account for acceleration. The results suggest that a safety training program based on trial-by-trial feedback is not a promising countermeasure against pedestrians' erroneous TTC estimation for accelerating objects.

Indexed as

Accidents, TrafficPedestriansAccelerationComputer SimulationFeedbackHumansSafety

Identifiers

PMID37531322
PMCPMC10395816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.