ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Road Hazard Stimuli: Annotated naturalistic road videos for studying hazard detection and scene perception.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can unreliable auditory hazard warnings help the driver? The effect of timing errors and false alarms on road hazard detection in dynamic road scenes.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
- Query by Example: Semantic Traffic Scene Retrieval Using LLM-Based Scene Graph Representation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Context-dependent modulation of spatial attention: prioritizing behaviourally relevant stimuli.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
- Hazard Perception in Visually Impaired Drivers Who Use Bioptic Telescopes.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Seeing the truck, but missing the cyclist: effects of blur on duration thresholds for road hazard detection.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Highly dangerous road hazards are not immune from the low prevalence effect.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Driving requires vision, yet there is little empirical data about how vision and cognition support safe driving. It is difficult to study perception during natural driving because the experimental rigor required would be dangerous and unethical to implement on the road. The driving environment is complex, dynamic, and immensely variable, making it extremely challenging to accurately replicate in simulation. Our proposed solution is to study vision using stimuli which reflect this inherent complexity by using footage of real driving situations. To this end, we curated a set of 750 crowd-sourced video clips (434 hazard and 316 no-hazard clips), which have been spatially, temporally, and categorically annotated. These annotations describe where the hazard appears, what it is, and when it occurs. In addition, perceived dangerousness changes from moment to moment and is not a simple binary detection judgement. To capture this more granular aspect of our stimuli, we asked 48 observers to rate the perceived hazardousness of 1356 brief video clips taken from these 750 source clips on a continuous scale. These ratings span the entire scale, have high interrater agreement, and are robust to driving history. This novel stimulus set is not only useful for understanding drivers' ability to detect hazards, but is also a tool for studying dynamic scene perception and other aspects of visual function. While this stimulus set was originally designed for behavioral studies, researchers interested in other areas such as traffic safety or computer vision may also find this dataset a useful resource.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38082115What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.