Dataset Information

Drivers' decision-making when attempting to cross an intersection results from choice between affordances.

ABSTRACT: In theory, a safe approach to an intersection implies that drivers can simultaneously manage two scenarios: they either choose to cross or to give way to an oncoming vehicle. In this article we formalize the critical time for safe crossing (CT cross ) and the critical time for safe stopping (CT stop ) to represent crossing and stopping possibilities, respectively. We describe these critical times in terms of affordances and empirically test their respective contribution to the driver's decision-making process. Using a driving simulator, three groups of participants drove cars with identical acceleration capabilities and different braking capabilities. They were asked to try to cross an intersection where there was an oncoming vehicle, if they deemed the maneuver to be safe. If not, they could decide to stop or, as a last resort, make an emergency exit. The intersections were identical among groups. Results showed that although the crossing possibilities (CT cross ) were the same for all groups, there were between-group differences in crossing frequency. This suggests that stopping possibilities (CT stop ) play a role in the driver's decision-making process, in addition to the crossing possibilities. These results can be accounted for by a behavioral model of decision making, and provide support for the hypothesis of choice between affordances.

SUBMITTER: Marti G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4288237 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Drivers' decision-making when attempting to cross an intersection results from choice between affordances.

Marti Geoffrey G Morice Antoine H P AH Montagne Gilles G

Frontiers in human neuroscience 20150109

In theory, a safe approach to an intersection implies that drivers can simultaneously manage two scenarios: they either choose to cross or to give way to an oncoming vehicle. In this article we formalize the critical time for safe crossing (CT cross ) and the critical time for safe stopping (CT stop ) to represent crossing and stopping possibilities, respectively. We describe these critical times in terms of affordances and empirically test their respective contribution to the driver's decision- ...[more]

PMID: 25620922

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVaccine hesitancy is a significant threat to global health. A key part of addressing hesitancy is to ensure that public health messaging prioritises information that is considered important to the public. This study aimed to examine how different vaccine characteristics affect public preferences for vaccines in New Zealand, what trade-offs they are willing to make between different vaccine characteristics, and how their preferences are affected by their vaccine-related conspiracy beliefs and COVID-19 vaccination status.MethodsAn online discrete choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit individual preferences about vaccines using the 1000minds platform. Members of the general population of New Zealand aged ≥ 18 years were invited to complete the DCE. Participants were asked to indicate their preference between two options showing different combinations of vaccine characteristics. Data on sociodemographic characteristics were collected. Beliefs were measured using the vaccine conspiracy beliefs scale (VCBS) with scores ≥ 19 indicating strong vaccine-related conspiracy beliefs. The DCE was analysed using the PAPRIKA method (Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives) and preferences compared between respondents with high versus low VCBS scores and vaccinated versus unvaccinated respondents for COVID-19.ResultsA total of 611 respondents from 15 regions completed the DCE. Mean (SD) age was 45.9 (14.7) years with most having had 2 or more doses of the coronavirus vaccine (86%). Mean (SD) VCBS score was 18.5 (12.4) indicating moderate vaccine-related conspiracy beliefs. Risk of severe adverse effects was the most highly valued vaccine characteristic, followed by vaccine effectiveness and duration of protection. Vaccine origin and route of administration were ranked least important. Respondents scoring high on the VCBS placed less value on the effectiveness of vaccines but greater value on development time and total number of doses (p < 0.001). COVID-19 unvaccinated respondents ranked development time and total number of doses more highly than those vaccinated respondents (p < 0.001).ConclusionsRisk of severe adverse effects, vaccine effectiveness and duration of protection were rated by the New Zealand public as the top three most important vaccine characteristics. This information is important for informing public health messaging to promote vaccine uptake and inform vaccine decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with kidney failure experience a complex decision on dialysis modality performed either at home or in hospital. The options have different levels of impact on their physical and psychological condition and social life. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of an intervention designed to achieve shared decision-making for dialysis choice. Specific objectives were: 1) to measure decision quality as indicated by patients' knowledge, readiness and achieved preferences; and 2) to determine if patients experienced shared decision-making.MethodA mixed methods descriptive study was conducted using both questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Eligible participants were adults with kidney failure considering dialysis modality. The intervention, based on the Three-Talk model, consisted of a patient decision aid and decision coaching meetings provided by trained dialysis coordinators. The intervention was delivered to 349 patients as part of their clinical pathway of care. After the intervention, 148 participants completed the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and the Decision Quality Measurement, and 29 participants were interviewed. Concordance between knowledge, decision and preference was calculated to measure decision quality. Interview transcripts were analysed qualitatively.ResultsThe participants obtained a mean score for shared decision-making of 86 out of 100. There was no significant difference between those choosing home- or hospital-based treatment (97 versus 83; p = 0.627). The participants obtained a knowledge score of 82% and a readiness score of 86%. Those choosing home-based treatment had higher knowledge score than those choosing hospital-based treatment (84% versus 75%; p = 0.006) but no significant difference on the readiness score (87% versus 84%; p = 0.908). Considering the chosen option and the knowledge score, 83% of the participants achieved a high-quality decision. No significant difference was found for decision quality between those choosing home- or hospital-based treatment (83% versus 83%; p = 0.935). Interview data informed the interpretation of these results.ConclusionsAlthough there was no control group, over 80% of participants exposed to the intervention and responded to the surveys experienced shared decision-making and reached a high-quality decision. Both participants who chose home- and hospital-based treatment experienced the intervention as shared decision-making and made a high-quality decision. Qualitative findings supported the quantitative results.Trial registrationThe full trial protocol is available at ClinicalTrials. Gov ( NCT03868800 ). The study has been registered retrospectively.

Dataset Information

Drivers' decision-making when attempting to cross an intersection results from choice between affordances.

Publications

Drivers' decision-making when attempting to cross an intersection results from choice between affordances.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets