ArticleBMC psychology2025
ERP insights into speed control: role of risk types and levels.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This study investigates the neural mechanisms underlying the inhibitory control of speed when drivers encounter varying levels of risk posed by pedestrians and motor vehicles. Two variables (risk level and risk type) were controlled in this study. The experimental materials included traffic images depicting pedestrians or motor vehicles, each associated with different risk levels. Drivers were presented with these images and tasked with adjusting their vehicle speed according to the traffic scenario. Specifically, they were instructed to either maintain their current speed or decelerate as needed. Electroencephalograms (EEGs) responses were simultaneously recorded. Results showed that in low-risk scenarios, the deceleration score was significantly higher for pedestrian risks than for motor vehicle risks. Under conditions of elevated risk, various risk types did not result in significant variations in deceleration scores. EEG data revealed that high-risk scenarios elicited a larger amplitude in the P3 component compared to low-risk scenarios. Additionally, the average amplitude of the N2 component was greater for pedestrian risks than for motor vehicle risks. These findings suggest that risk level and type do not act as independent factors influencing speed control. Specifically, when the risk originates from pedestrians, drivers tend to reduce their speed even when the risk level is low, in order to mitigate potential hazards and prioritize safety. Furthermore, high-risk situations elicit a more pronounced brain response and demand greater attentional resources compared to low-risk situations. This study provides valuable insights for establishing speed limits based on different sources of risk in driving scenarios.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.