Skip to main content

Conspicuity and Accidents: Data Versus Resource-Limited Differentiations

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
  • 178 Accesses

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 824))

Abstract

Accident events frequently involved failures of conspicuity. These failures can be predominantly sensory in nature in which, either the world itself does not provide sufficient informational cues such that they are masked or diminished in some fashion, or the sensory surfaces of the observing individual prove insufficient to register the critical cues for action. In contrast to sensory conspicuity stands cognitive conspicuity. Here, the cues from the environment may be very clear and also be efficiently registered by the individual perceiver. Yet, their significance may remain unrecognized due to the experiential and/or attentional limitations of that person. Sensory restrictions are often equated to inherent limits in bottom-up processing. In turn, cognitive limitations are linked to restrictions on top-down processing. In this brief paper, I look to explore a further link to the constructs of data-limited and resource-limited capacities which are closely aligned to the conspicuity dimensions identified. Most especially, I look to introduce the co-action of these processes and how their interactive effects play into various forms of accident with examples taken primarily from ground transportation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hancock PA, Warm JS (1989) A dynamic model of stress and sustained attention. Hum Factors 31:519–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hancock PA (2009) Performance at the very edge. Mil Psychol 21(1):S68–S74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hoffman RR, Hancock PA (2017) Measuring resilience. Hum Factors 59(4):564–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hancock PA (2017) Imposing limits on autonomous systems. Ergonomics 60(2):284–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hancock PA (2018) Some pitfalls in the promises of automated vehicles. Manuscript in Submission

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wulf G, Hancock PA, Rahimi M (1989) Motorcycle conspicuity: an evaluation and synthesis of influential factors. J Saf Res 20:153–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hancock PA (2018) Issues in dynamic conspicuity. In Revision

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hancock PA, Masalonis AJ, Parasuraman R (2000) On the theory of fuzzy signal detection: theoretical and practical considerations and extensions. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 1(3):207–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Parasuraman R, Masalonis AJ, Hancock PA (2000) Fuzzy signal detection theory: basic postulates and formulas for analyzing human and machine performance. Hum Factors 42(4):636–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gibson JJ (2014) The ecological approach to visual perception: classic edition. Psychology Press

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lewin K (2013) Principles of topological psychology. Read Books Ltd

    Google Scholar 

  12. Weiskrantz L (2009) Blindsight: a case study and implications. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gilhotra JS, Mitchell P, Ivers R, Cumming RG (2001) Impaired vision and other factors associated with driving cessation in the elderly: the blue mountains eye study. Clin Exp Ophthal 29(3):104–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hancock PA, Dirkin GR (1983) Stressor induced attentional narrowing: implications for design and operation of person-machine systems. Proc Hum Factors Assoc Canada 16:19–21

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dirkin GR, Hancock PA (1985) An attentional view of narrowing: the effect of noise and signal bias on discrimination in the peripheral visual field. In: Brown ID, Goldsmith R, Coombes K, Sinclair MA (eds) Ergonomics international 85: Proceedings of the ninth congress of the international ergonomics association, pp 751–753, Bournemouth, England, September 1985

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hancock PA, Mouloua M, Senders JW (2008) On the philosophical foundations of driving distraction and the distracted driver. In: Regan MA, Lee JD, Young KL (eds) Driver distraction: theory, effects and mitigation, pp 11–30. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hancock PA (2013) Driven to distraction and back again. In: Regan MA, Victor T, Lee J (eds) Driver Distraction and Inattention: Advances in Research and Countermeasures, pp 9–25. Ashgate, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  18. Verghese P (2001) Visual search and attention: a signal detection theory approach. Neuron 31(4):523–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pirolli P, Card S (1999) Information foraging. Psychol Rev 106(4):643–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hancock PA, Wulf G, Thorn D, Fassnacht P (1990) Driver workload during differing driving maneuvers. Accid Anal Prev 22(3):281–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wiseman RJ (2003) The luck factor: Changing your luck, changing your life, the four essential principles. Miramax/Hyperion

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hancock PA, Sawyer BD (2015) Judging thieves of attention. Hum Factors 57(8):1339–1342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Norman DA, Bobrow DG (1975) On data-limited and resource limited processes. Cogn Psychol 7:44–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kantowitz BH, Knight JL (1976) On experimenter-limited processes. Psychol Rev 83(6):502–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Watson JM, Strayer DL (2010) Supertaskers: profiles in extraordinary multitasking ability. Psychon Bull Rev 17(4):479–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Diniz-Filho A, Boer ER, Elhosseiny A, Wu Z, Nakanishi M, Medeiros FA (2016) Glaucoma and driving risk under simulated fog conditions. Transl Vis Sci Technol 5(6):15:1–15:9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dawson D, Reid K (1997) Fatigue, alcohol and performance impairment. Nature 388(6639):235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hancock PA (2018) Some pitfalls in the promises of automated and autonomous vehicles. Ergonomics (2018, in press)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Reason J (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Hollnagel E (2014) Safety-I and Safety-II: the past and future of safety management. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. A. Hancock .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Hancock, P.A. (2019). Conspicuity and Accidents: Data Versus Resource-Limited Differentiations. In: Bagnara, S., Tartaglia, R., Albolino, S., Alexander, T., Fujita, Y. (eds) Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018). IEA 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 824. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96071-5_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics