• Y B Wang, W Zhang, and G Salvendy.
• State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety and Energy Department of Industrial Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
• Traffic Inj Prev. 2010 Oct 1; 11 (5): 483-91.

ObjectivesThe effectiveness of two hazard perception training methods, simulation-based error training (SET) and video-based guided error training (VGET), for novice drivers' hazard handling performance was tested, compared, and analyzed.MethodsThirty-two novice drivers participated in the hazard perception training. Half of the participants were trained using SET by making errors and/or experiencing accidents while driving with a desktop simulator. The other half were trained using VGET by watching prerecorded video clips of errors and accidents that were made by other people. The two groups had exposure to equal numbers of errors for each training scenario. All the participants were tested and evaluated for hazard handling on a full cockpit driving simulator one week after training. Hazard handling performance and hazard response were measured in this transfer test.ResultsBoth hazard handling performance scores and hazard response distances were significantly better for the SET group than the VGET group. Furthermore, the SET group had more metacognitive activities and intrinsic motivation. SET also seemed more effective in changing participants' confidence, but the result did not reach the significance level.ConclusionsSET exhibited a higher training effectiveness of hazard response and handling than VGET in the simulated transfer test. The superiority of SET might benefit from the higher levels of metacognition and intrinsic motivation during training, which was observed in the experiment. Future research should be conducted to assess whether the advantages of error training are still effective under real road conditions.

19 keywords...

hide…