Age, cognitive style, and traffic signs

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

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, M=26 • Older group (7 women & 11 men) age from 56-82 years old, M=67 • 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 (P<.01), the older subjects are more from higher scores on the GEFT than the younger’s. • Traffic signs • RT as a function of the category to which a sign belonged (p<.05). • The background on which a sign appeared affected time to recognize (p<.05). • The position at which the sign appeared had a significant effect on RT (p<.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 (P<.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.