高低风险驾驶员在认知功能与驾驶行为上的差异研究
文献类型：学位论文
| 作者 | 余振豪 |
| 答辩日期 | 2024-06 |
| 文献子类 | 硕士 |
| 授予单位 | 中国科学院大学 |
| 授予地点 | 中国科学院心理研究所 |
| 其他责任者 | 瞿炜娜 |
| 关键词 | 风险驾驶员 驾驶任务-能力匹配模型 一般信息加工模型 驾驶行为 认知功能 |
| 学位名称 | 应用心理硕士 |
| 学位专业 | 应用心理 |
| 其他题名 | A study on the differences in cognitive functions and driving behavior between high-risk and low-risk drivers |
| 中文摘要 | How to reduce traffic accidents has been an important topic in the field of traffic psychology. In the field of transportation, risky drivers refer to those drivers who are involved in accidents, and if these drivers can be identified by certain factors, traffic safety can be greatly promoted, and the likelihood of traffic accidents can be reduced. Most of the previous studies have screened for risky drivers through some stable individual factors, such as personality differences and risky driving attitudes. These factors are relatively mature, but today's research on cognitive functioning as a risk factor for traffic accidents is scarce and has the following problems: first, the direction of the influence of some cognitive functions on driving behavior is inconsistent or opposite across studies, and it is not known whether higher levels of cognitive functioning lead to safer driving behaviors; second, the previous literature has not examined the differences between high- and low-risk drivers on some cognitive functions. It is still not known whether there are differences in these cognitive functions between high- and low-risk drivers. Therefore, this study aims to address the above questions based on the Task-capability Interface model and the general information processing model of cognitive functions and to further investigate which cognitive functions and which driving behavior indicators differ between high- and low-risk drivers. Study 1 focused on investigating whether high- and low-risk drivers differed in driving behaviors in executive functions versus daily driving scenarios. Experiment 1 recruited 26 low-risk drivers versus 33 high-risk drivers. The results found that high-risk drivers had lower levels of inhibition and engaged in more risky driving behaviors such as violations and errors. The results of the path analysis found that inhibition positively predicted the likelihood of the accident but did not indirectly affect accidents through everyday risky driving behaviors. The shifting function, on the other hand, positively affects accidents by positively influencing general violations and thus accidents. These results suggest that high-risk drivers may be more inclined to engage in more aggressive behavioral decisions, which can lead to accidents. Study 2 focused on exploring high and low-risk drivers with differences in basic cognitive functioning and specific driving tasks. The subjects of all experiments in Study 2 were the same as those in Study 1, and the basic cognitive functions of all experiments included perception, attention, and response selection functions. Experiment 2 focused on drivers' ability to cope with critical incidents, and aimed to investigate whether high-risk drivers differed from low-risk drivers in terms of basic cognitive functions and critical incident driving indexes, and the results of Experiment 2 found that high-risk drivers had higher motor perception and coordination abilities. However, high-risk drivers engage in more risky driving behaviors, as shown in the data results that high-risk drivers have faster longitudinal speeds, faster speeds/smaller maximum deceleration before encountering an emergency braking event, and closer lateral distances to construction obstacles when in construction sections. The results of the path analysis also showed that motor perception, coordination ability and alertness ability affect the occurrence of accidents by influencing risky driving behaviors; Experiments 3 and 4 mainly started from the driver's ability to stabilize and control the vehicle, and designed a following task (Experiment 3) and a lane-changing overtaking task (Experiment 4), so as to test whether the high-risk drivers have differences in basic cognitive functions, following behavioral indexes, and lane-changing overtaking behavioral indexes. differences. Only differences in lateral position in the following task were found for high-risk drivers compared to low-risk drivers in Experiment III. The results of the path analysis indicated that both basic cognitive functions were significant negative predictors of lateral position and standard deviation of lateral position, but not on the remaining indicators of the following task. Experiment 4 found that high-risk drivers had poorer lateral position maintenance in both high and low traffic density environments, and that high-risk drivers preferred changing lanes in curves in low traffic density, while high-risk drivers instead overtook more often in high traffic density. However, path analyses only showed that response selection and attention to charge functions were significant negative predictors of overtaking frequency in high-density traffic environments, and there was no evidence that cognitive functioning in a lane-changing overtaking task could affect risky driving behavior indicators such as the number of lane-changing overtakes and thus accidents. In summary, inhibition, motion perception, and coordination functions have direct effects on accidents, while shifting and vigilance have only indirect effects. Drivers with higher levels of cognitive resources engaged in more cognitive functions (such as motion perception and coordination) may be more prone to overconfidence in driving activities and thus more likely to be involved in accidents. Conversely, cognitive functions requiring fewer cognitive resources (such as inhibition, vigilance, and shifting) may be unrelated to overconfidence. Drivers with better or worse cognitive functions in these areas may exhibit unique behaviors in pro-social driving attitudes, impulsive personality traits, and attention control resource systems. Since this study did not measure variables such as personality traits or subjective confidence levels, the above speculations await further exploration in future research. The present study bridges the gap that exists in previous research. From the theoretical level, firstly, this study further validates the driving task-ability matching model; secondly, it lays the foundation for subsequent modeling studies on how to identify high-risk drivers based on various cognitive function parameters; from the application level, firstly, this study provides guidance for subsequent fitness-to-drive tests, so that relevant test developers can decide which cognitive tests to include based on the results of this study; secondly, it identifying the cognitive functions that effectively detect high-risk drivers can help us to subsequently develop appropriate cognitive interventions, thereby reducing the likelihood that high-risk drivers will be involved in traffic violations in the future. |
| 英文摘要 | 如何减少交通事故的发生一直是交通心理领域中的重要议题。在交通领域， 一般来说风险驾驶员是指卷入事故的驾驶员，如果能够通过某些手段识别这些驾驶员，可以在极大程度上促进交通安全，减少交通事故的发生。以往研究大多数通过一些稳定的个体因素去筛选识别风险驾驶员，例如人格差异与风险驾驶态度等等。这些因素方面的研究已经相对成熟，但是当今研究在认知功能这一交通事故风险因素上的研究较少且存在以下问题：首先，部分认知功能与驾驶行为的影响方向在不同研究之间不一致；其次，以往文献并未直接研究认知功能与事故之间的关系。目前仍不能得知是否以事故为依据进行划分的高低风险驾驶员在这些 认知功能上具有差异。因此，本研究旨在基于驾驶任务-能力匹配模型与认知功能的一般信息处理模型解决以上问题，对高低风险驾驶员在何种认知功能与何种驾驶行为指标上具有差异作进一步探究。 研究一主要探究高低风险驾驶员是否在执行功能与违规失误驾驶情景中的驾驶行为具有差异。实验一招募了 26 名低风险驾驶员与 33 名高风险驾驶员。结果发现高风险驾驶员抑制功能水平更低，且会做出更多的违规及错误等风险驾驶行为。路径分析的结果发现抑制能够正向预测事故数，但并不通过日常风险驾驶行为间接影响事故发生。转换功能则通过正向影响一般性违规进而正向影响事故的发生。这些结果说明高风险驾驶员可能在行为决策上更倾向做出更激进的行为，从而导致事故的发生。 研究二主要探究高低风险驾驶员在知觉、注意、反应选择功能及特定驾驶任务上具有差异。研究二所有实验的被试均从研究一召回，因此被试情况均同研究一。在这些基础认知功能上，仅发现高风险驾驶员相较于低风险驾驶员在运动知觉与协调功能上具有差异，具体表现为高风险驾驶员的运动知觉能力与协调能力要比低风险驾驶员更好。实验二主要从驾驶员应对突发事件的能力出发，旨在探究高风险驾驶员是否相比于低风险驾驶员在这些基础认知功能与突发事件驾驶指标上具有差异。结果发现高风险驾驶员却会做出更多的风险驾驶行为，具体表现在高风险驾驶员的纵向速度更快，遇到紧急制动事件前的速度更快/最大减速度更小，在施工路段时离施工障碍物横向距离更近等数据结果上。路径分析的结果也表明运动知觉、协调能力以及警觉能力通过影响风险驾驶行为进而影响事故的发生；实验三、四主要从驾驶员对车辆稳定与控制能力出发，设计了跟车任务 (实验三)与变道超车任务(实验四)，以此检验高风险驾驶员是否在以上基础认知功能、跟车行为指标、与变道超车行为指标上具有差异。实验三中只发现了高风险驾驶员相比低风险驾驶员在跟车任务中横向位置的差异。路径分析的结果表明这些基础认知功能均对横向位置与横向位置标准差有显著负向预测作用，但是在 跟车任务的其余指标上无显著预测作用。实验四发现高风险驾驶员不管在高车流 密度环境下还是低车流密度环境下的横向位置保持均较差，并且在低车流密度下高风险驾驶员更喜爱在弯道变道，在高车流密度下高风险驾驶员反而超车次数更多。但路径分析只显示反应选择&注意执控功能对高密度车流环境下的超车次数具有显著负向预测作用，并无证据表明在变道超车任务中认知功能能影响到变道超车次数等风险驾驶行为指标进而影响事故。 综合来看，抑制、运动知觉与协调功能对事故具有直接效应，而转换与警觉因只对事故具有间接效应。驾驶员在需要认知资源参与较多的认知功能上水平越高（例如运动知觉与协调能力），可能越容易导致驾驶活动中的过分自信，进而更容易卷入事故；而需要认知资源参与较少的认知功能可能与过分自信无关（例如抑制、警觉、转换等），这些认知功能越好或越差的驾驶员可能在亲社会驾驶态度、冲动性人格特质、与注意控制资源系统上有着独特的表现。由于本研究并未测量人格特质或主观信心水平等变量，因此上述推测还有待未来研究的进一步探究。 本研究弥补了以往研究存在的不足。从理论层面上来看，首先本研究进一步验证了驾驶任务-能力匹配模型；其次，该研究为后续如何根据各种认知功能参数识别高风险驾驶员的建模研究打下基础；从应用层面上来看，首先本研究为后续的适驾测试提供了指导，相关的测试开发人员能根据本研究结果决定纳入何种认知测试；其次，识别有效检出高风险驾驶员的认知功能可以帮助我们在后续开发相应的认知干预手段，从而降低高风险驾驶员在未来卷入交通违规的可能性。 |
| 语种 | 中文 |
| 源URL | [http://ir.psych.ac.cn/handle/311026/48158]  |
| 专题 | 心理研究所_社会与工程心理学研究室 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | 余振豪. 高低风险驾驶员在认知功能与驾驶行为上的差异研究[D]. 中国科学院心理研究所. 中国科学院大学. 2024. |
入库方式： OAI收割
来源：心理研究所
浏览0
下载0
收藏0
其他版本
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。