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
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Hancock PA, Warm JS (1989) A dynamic model of stress and sustained attention. Hum Factors 31:519–537
Hancock PA (2009) Performance at the very edge. Mil Psychol 21(1):S68–S74
Hoffman RR, Hancock PA (2017) Measuring resilience. Hum Factors 59(4):564–581
Hancock PA (2017) Imposing limits on autonomous systems. Ergonomics 60(2):284–291
Hancock PA (2018) Some pitfalls in the promises of automated vehicles. Manuscript in Submission
Wulf G, Hancock PA, Rahimi M (1989) Motorcycle conspicuity: an evaluation and synthesis of influential factors. J Saf Res 20:153–176
Hancock PA (2018) Issues in dynamic conspicuity. In Revision
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
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
Gibson JJ (2014) The ecological approach to visual perception: classic edition. Psychology Press
Lewin K (2013) Principles of topological psychology. Read Books Ltd
Weiskrantz L (2009) Blindsight: a case study and implications. Oxford University Press, New York
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
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
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
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
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
Verghese P (2001) Visual search and attention: a signal detection theory approach. Neuron 31(4):523–535
Pirolli P, Card S (1999) Information foraging. Psychol Rev 106(4):643–675
Hancock PA, Wulf G, Thorn D, Fassnacht P (1990) Driver workload during differing driving maneuvers. Accid Anal Prev 22(3):281–290
Wiseman RJ (2003) The luck factor: Changing your luck, changing your life, the four essential principles. Miramax/Hyperion
Hancock PA, Sawyer BD (2015) Judging thieves of attention. Hum Factors 57(8):1339–1342
Norman DA, Bobrow DG (1975) On data-limited and resource limited processes. Cogn Psychol 7:44–64
Kantowitz BH, Knight JL (1976) On experimenter-limited processes. Psychol Rev 83(6):502–507
Watson JM, Strayer DL (2010) Supertaskers: profiles in extraordinary multitasking ability. Psychon Bull Rev 17(4):479–485
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
Dawson D, Reid K (1997) Fatigue, alcohol and performance impairment. Nature 388(6639):235
Hancock PA (2018) Some pitfalls in the promises of automated and autonomous vehicles. Ergonomics (2018, in press)
Reason J (1990) Human error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hollnagel E (2014) Safety-I and Safety-II: the past and future of safety management. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96071-5_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-96070-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-96071-5
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)