Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40613090›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025

Time-variant Granger causality analysis for intuitive perception collision risk in driving scenario: an EEG study.

Zhe Wang, Jialong Liang, Shang Shi, Peng Zhai, Lihua Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Zhe WangAcademy for Engineering and Technology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Jialong LiangAcademy for Engineering and Technology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Shang ShiDepartment of Computer Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Peng ZhaiAcademy for Engineering and Technology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Lihua ZhangAcademy for Engineering and Technology, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intuition is a rapid and unconscious cognitive process that is widely utilized in driving scenario. The current study examines the neural mechanisms behind intuitive driving by performing a time-varying Granger causality analysis on source-domain EEG data. We construct an innovative experimental setup that utilizes immersive driving simulation videos to elicit intuitive decision-making alongside with neural activities. We performed Granger causality analysis on a sliding window basis that resulted in a directed connectivity model. By examining the node strength, we identify that the experienced drivers increase activation in intrinsic functional networks associated with visual attention and decision-making, which can be considered as the evidence for possessing better collision risk perception when compared to novice drivers. We also identify that experienced drivers exhibit a more stable and dispersed connectivity, especially in the beta band. In contrast, novice drivers exhibited more complex and less efficient connectivity, which can be interpreted as evidence of more efficient neural strategies for rapid decision-making in experienced drivers. This work not only advances the understanding of intuitive driving but also offers valuable insights for developing intelligent driving hazard perception systems. By targeting individual differences, we pave the way for personalized training programs to enhance driving safety and performance.

Indexed as

collision riskEEGfunctional connectivityGranger causalityintuitive prediction

Identifiers

PMID40613090
PMCPMC12222080

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.