Advertisement

Conspicuity and Accidents: Data Versus Resource-Limited Differentiations

  • P. A. Hancock
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (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.

Keywords

Conspicuity Accidents Data-limited processing Resource-limited processing 

References

  1. 1.
    Hancock PA, Warm JS (1989) A dynamic model of stress and sustained attention. Hum Factors 31:519–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hancock PA (2009) Performance at the very edge. Mil Psychol 21(1):S68–S74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoffman RR, Hancock PA (2017) Measuring resilience. Hum Factors 59(4):564–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hancock PA (2017) Imposing limits on autonomous systems. Ergonomics 60(2):284–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hancock PA (2018) Some pitfalls in the promises of automated vehicles. Manuscript in SubmissionGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wulf G, Hancock PA, Rahimi M (1989) Motorcycle conspicuity: an evaluation and synthesis of influential factors. J Saf Res 20:153–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hancock PA (2018) Issues in dynamic conspicuity. In RevisionGoogle Scholar
  8. 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):207–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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):636–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gibson JJ (2014) The ecological approach to visual perception: classic edition. Psychology PressGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewin K (2013) Principles of topological psychology. Read Books LtdGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weiskrantz L (2009) Blindsight: a case study and implications. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 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):104–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hancock PA, Dirkin GR (1983) Stressor induced attentional narrowing: implications for design and operation of person-machine systems. Proc Hum Factors Assoc Canada 16:19–21Google Scholar
  15. 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 1985Google Scholar
  16. 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 RatonGoogle Scholar
  17. 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, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Verghese P (2001) Visual search and attention: a signal detection theory approach. Neuron 31(4):523–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pirolli P, Card S (1999) Information foraging. Psychol Rev 106(4):643–675Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hancock PA, Wulf G, Thorn D, Fassnacht P (1990) Driver workload during differing driving maneuvers. Accid Anal Prev 22(3):281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wiseman RJ (2003) The luck factor: Changing your luck, changing your life, the four essential principles. Miramax/HyperionGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hancock PA, Sawyer BD (2015) Judging thieves of attention. Hum Factors 57(8):1339–1342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Norman DA, Bobrow DG (1975) On data-limited and resource limited processes. Cogn Psychol 7:44–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kantowitz BH, Knight JL (1976) On experimenter-limited processes. Psychol Rev 83(6):502–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Watson JM, Strayer DL (2010) Supertaskers: profiles in extraordinary multitasking ability. Psychon Bull Rev 17(4):479–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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):15:1–15:9Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dawson D, Reid K (1997) Fatigue, alcohol and performance impairment. Nature 388(6639):235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hancock PA (2018) Some pitfalls in the promises of automated and autonomous vehicles. Ergonomics (2018, in press)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reason J (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hollnagel E (2014) Safety-I and Safety-II: the past and future of safety management. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations