4.5 Article

Driving safety: Investigating the cognitive foundations of accident prevention

期刊

HELIYON
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21355

关键词

Driving assessment; Safe driving; Driving performance; Driving simulator; Cognitive abilities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study identified reliable cognitive predictors of safe driving through a driving simulator experiment. Results showed that cognitive assessment scores were able to predict the rate of traffic infractions in challenging driving conditions, particularly in the aspects of memory and coordination.
Driving is a crucial aspect of personal independence, and accurate assessment of driving skills is vital for ensuring road safety. This study aimed to identify reliable cognitive predictors of safe driving through a driving simulator experiment. We assessed the driving performance of 66 university students in two distinct simulated driving conditions and evaluated their cognitive skills in decision-making, attention, memory, reasoning, perception, and coordination. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine the most reliable cognitive predictor of driving outcome. Results revealed that under favorable driving conditions characterized by good weather and limited interactions with other road users, none of the variables tested in the study were able to predict driving performance. However, in a more challenging scenario with adverse weather conditions and heavier traffic, cognitive assessment scores demonstrated significant predictive power for the rate of traffic infractions committed. Specifically, cognitive skills related to memory and coordination were found to be most predictive. This study underscores the significance of cognitive ability, particularly memory, in ensuring safe driving performance. Incorporating cognitive evaluations in driver licensing and education/training programs can enhance the evaluation of drivers' competence and promote safer driving practices.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据