English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Driving simulators are typically used when analyzing hazardous and collision events, as dangerous drives can be performed in controlled environments without compromising driver safety. Most driving simulators use a form of wrap around screens to project the simulation as they provide a wide field of view for the user creating a more realistic experience. However, this visual modality is costly and not practical for smaller workspaces. Recent advancements in head mounted display (HMD) technology may make them a better alternative to wrap around screens, but studies have yet to compare the two visual modality effects on driver performance in hazardous scenarios. In this study, drivers completed two drive simulations, one using wrap around screens and the other using a commercially available HMD. Each simulation contained two different unexpected pedestrian crossings in which the perception-response time and brake movement time of the driver was assessed. Average vehicle speed and standard deviation of lateral position were also examined. Perception-response time was significantly longer for drivers when wearing the HMD than when using wrap around screens. There were also significant differences in vehicle speed during driver perception-response time and brake movement time between display modalities but standard deviation of lateral position only had significant differences during perception-response times. Further advancements in HMD technology are needed before they can provide an adequate alternative to wrap around screens when analyzing driver response scenarios.

Comparison of Wrap Around Screens and HMDs on a Driver’s Response to an Unexpected Pedestrian Crossing Using Simulator Vehicle Parameters