ArticleScientific reports2025
Eye movement predictors of hazard response performance in train drivers under different speed conditions.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Foreign objects on railroads contribute to railway accidents. Train driving heavily relies on visual prowess. Drivers must quickly identify and react to these hazards, capabilities that directly impact the safety and efficiency of train operations. As train speeds increase, it becomes increasingly challenging to spot track anomalies. This underscores the importance of studying drivers' visual attention, especially under different speed conditions. This study delved into the nuances of train drivers' hazard detection by analyzing eye movement and response performance to simulated foreign object encroachments at different speeds. Our objective was to identify eye movement indicators predictive of train drivers' hazard response efficacy and to understand how these vary across different speed scenarios. The analysis highlighted distinct predictors for effective hazard response at different speeds. At standard speeds, maintaining consistent attention is crucial. The time spent searching positively correlates with hazard detection efficiency in these conditions. At higher speeds, rapid information processing becomes key, and a shorter average gaze duration indicates better hazard response. The study also revealed that train drivers tend to exhibit a left-leaning attention bias when recognizing ground-level foreign object encroachments. These insights support the development of improved training programs for train drivers, optimization of track and signal marker placement, and design of effective foreign object detection systems.
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.