Age, cognitive style, and traffic signs - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 19
About This Presentation
Title:

Age, cognitive style, and traffic signs

Description:

Age, cognitive style, and traffic signs Professor: Liu Student: Ruby – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:324
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 20
Provided by: edut1550
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Age, cognitive style, and traffic signs


1
Age, cognitive style, and traffic signs
  • Professor Liu
  • Student Ruby

2
objective
  • This study discuss the young and older adults of
    field dependence on traffic signs.
  • To assess to what extent changes in traffic signs
    could render them more easily recognizable by car
    drivers.

3
References
  • Drivers they observed in a real driving situation
    more frequently did not obey a Do not enter
    sign.
  • when it was presented directly in its environment
    than when it was isolated by a square surface of
    1 m on each side.
  • Hoskovec, Stikar, and Raouf, 1974
  • Elderly drivers have more accidents by kilometer
    driven than the population and also more often
    legally responsible for these accidents.
  • Waller, 1988 Rothengatter Brouwer,
    1991

4
References
  • People differ in perceiving the world and these
    differences have many times been related to the
    concept of field-dependence/independence.
  • Witkin, Dyk, Faterson, Goodenough, Karp,
    1962
  • Field dependent subjects are less efficient than
    field-independent ones in detecting indices
    relevant to the driving task.
  • Goodenough, 1976 Mihal Barret, 1976

5
Exp 1 - Methods
  • Assessment of effects of age and cognitive style
    on a recognition task
  • Subjects
  • Younger group (16 people, 8 women 8 men)
  • age from 19-40 years old, M26
  • Older group (7 women 11 men)
  • age from 56-82 years old, M67
  • Using Group Embedded Figures Test to find the
    field dependence/independence.

6
Methods
  • Stimuli
  • 20 traffic signs.
  • 4 were used the references and not appear in the
    analysis.
  • Each of the 16 signs was presented against each
    of three backgrounds and at each of two
    positions.
  • Each condition presented three times.
  • The signs were in a rural and urban scene.

7
Methods
  • Procedure
  • Two traffic signs were presented on a black
    screen for 2 sec, then blank for 500 mses, and
    then the target sign appeared.
  • Then subject response which position the target
    get in.

8
Result and Discussion
  • Personality variables
  • Field dependent as well as the older subjects had
    longer recognition times than field independent
    (younger).
  • The interaction between was significant (Plt.01),
    the older subjects are more from higher scores on
    the GEFT than the youngers.
  • Traffic signs
  • RT as a function of the category to which a sign
    belonged (plt.05).
  • The background on which a sign appeared affected
    time to recognize (plt.05).
  • The position at which the sign appeared had a
    significant effect on RT (plt.05).

9
Result and Discussion
  • The influence of the backgrounds only showed up
    in the Prescription and Indication categories.
  • The effect of the position in which a sign
    appeared was significant only in the Construction
    category.

10
Result and Discussion
  • The personality explain more than 53 of the
    observed variance of the results whereas the
    factors associated with the environment explain
    only 14.
  • ?the urban of the personality in the efficacy of
    extracting information from the environment.
  • The subjects are facing a sign which presents a
    low spatial frequency, but not in the high
    spatial frequency.

11
Exp 2 - Methods
  • Assessment of modifications of pictographs of
    traffic signs to make them more conspicuous and
    faster to recognize
  • Subjects
  • Younger group (12 people, age of 26 years)
  • Older group (12 people, age of 62 years)
  • Using the Group Embedded Figures Test to know the
    cognition style.
  • Two conditions in this study
  • One being the detection or localization of a
    traffic sign embedded in its context.
  • The other being the recognition or identification
    of a traffic sign.

12
Methods
  • Stimuli
  • There had eight signs presented to subjects.
  • The signs were effectively used were two existing
    signs.
  • One announcing the beginning of a gravel road.
  • The other the beginning of grooved pavement.

13
Methods
  • Procedure
  • For the identification part, present a traffic
    sign on a black background for 2 sec, which was
    the target.
  • For the localization part, the traffic signs
    appeared on one of three graphic backgrounds.

14
Results
  • The personality factors showed that the older
    people were slower to respond and they were more
    field-dependent than younger.
  • The modifications of the pictographs affected the
    time to identify the signs (Plt.05).

15
Results
16
Results
  • Detection
  • The time taken to localize the signs was
    influenced by the personality measures of the
    subjects.
  • More field independent people, the RT was faster.

17
Discussion
  • In many situations the RTs were essentially
    independent of the number of non-targets.
  • For detection, the subjects only had a coarse
    localization to perform and this could well be
    done with effortless processing.

18
Discussion
  • The field-dependent scorers were still slower
    than the field-independent scorers at the
    localization of the target.
  • To the identification part of the study, the
    modifications had a reduction in time taken for
    recognition of more than 90 msec.
  • ?present a modification of a sign with the equal
    modification of the other one thus rendering the
    task more difficult.

19
Discussion
  • Older field dependent drivers were slower RT, and
    the young field independent were the faster.
  • ?greater attention should be paid to the
    modification of some traffic signs, especially
    for the older drivers.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com