Safe driving depends on the transfer of what is learned during training to a wider range of circumstances than could ever be encountered during training (Groeger & Banks, 2007). Two types of transfer are commonly referred to in the literature. Near transfer refers to transfer to a similar context to the one in which the learning takes place; and far transfer refers to transfer to a dissimilar contest (Barnett & Ceci, 2002). Although the concept of transfer has been studied by psychologists for over a century (see Thorndike & Woodworth, 1901), there is still little consensus on when, or even if, transfer of learning occurs, with a number of studies failing to find any evidence that learning in one context can generalise to related problems in different contexts (Barnett & Ceci, 2002). Barnett and Ceci (2002) argue that one of the reasons for the continuing absence of concrete knowledge around transfer of learning is the lack of any taxonomic framework for studying transfer. In many cases the training contexts and the contexts in which near and far transfer are expected to take place are not clearly defined. Groeger and Banks (2007) have attempted to tackle this issue by providing a framework for the evaluation of transfer during driving which focuses on specifying the content of what is to be transferred and the circumstances in which this transfer is expected to take place. The content of transfer refers to the level of learned skills, the type of performance change expected, and the extent of memory demand required. The circumstances of transfer can refer to the physical, temporal, social or functional contexts surrounding learning and transfer. As driver training provides no benefit unless it can transfer to circumstances not previously encountered, it is important to gain an understanding of when this transfer could be expected to occur. This framework will be discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 5. A number of studies have attempted, with varying success, to train hazard perception using simple PC based packages and simulator training. In order to evaluate the success of the training, aspects of both near and far transfer have been assessed. Various different techniques have been used including anticipation training, verbal commentary training and error training. These will now be discussed in more detail.
1.5.1.1 Commentary Training
A number of studies have made use of commentary training to improve participant’s hazard perception scores in a traditional computer-based hazard perception test. Isler et al. (2009) found that training in which participants were instructed to provide a
17/12/2013 Ruth Madigan 24 running verbal commentary about any hazards they detected in video scenarios, including potential as well as immediate hazards, led to a significant improvement in response times and detection rates in a post-training hazard perception test. After training, there was no difference in the hazard perception scores of trained novice drivers and experienced drivers; and the trained drivers detected more hazards than an untrained novice group. However, caution should be taken in generalising from the results as the performance of experienced drivers actually diminished after the commentary training, with the number of hazards detected decreasing from the pre- training trial. There were also a number of design issues with this study including poorly defined experience groups and a lack of consideration of potential hazards (see Section 1.4.1.3 for more detail).
Wallis and Horswill (2007) also found that a group of novice drivers who received commentary training responded significantly faster than untrained novice drivers. Both the trained novice group and the experienced group made significantly more responses during the hazard perception test than novice drivers. However, the three groups did not differ significantly from one another in terms of their hazard ratings. McKenna et al. (2006) found that even listening to a recorded commentary could improve hazard perception-reaction times. Participants watched a video while listening to a recorded commentary supplied by a police instructor. The commentary described how to locate and identify potential hazards. Results indicated that trained participants responded significantly faster to a computer based hazard perception test than untrained participants. They also gave significantly less risky responses on a battery of computer based tests designed to assess speed choice and gap acceptance behaviours. A second study showed that these responses only occurred in hazardous situations, showing that trained drivers were able to discriminate between hazardous and non-hazardous environments. These results suggest that hazard perception can be improved through both creating and listening to verbal commentaries about hazardous situations. However, as all of the studies were computer based, there is no evidence as to how this training would transfer to hazard handling while actually driving.
Crundall et al. (2010) have examined the impact of training in commentary driving on subsequent performance on a driving simulator. The training took place over a
period of two weeks. Firstly, the novice drivers were given a classroom lesson which involved watching a video of a drive while listening to a commentary, and identifying and ordering potential hazards displayed. They were then given a two hour on-road training session in commentary driving by a police-trained driving instructor, with the aim of identifying hazards, prioritising them and predicting what might happen next. They were also given feedback on any potential hazards that they missed. Results indicated that the risk of a collision with other road users was significantly reduced after the training intervention. Pre- and post-training tests consisted of a 10 minute simulator drive containing hazardous events. Participants who had undergone training reduced their speed in relation to post-test hazards earlier, and to a greater extent than the control group, in particular in situations which required ‘dividing and focusing attention’ and ‘behavioural prediction’ skills (see Section 1.4.1.3). Acceleration and braking behaviour was also found to differ between trained and untrained participants in the post-training test. Although these results show the benefits of using commentary training to increase novice drivers hazard perception skills, it should be noted that the training failed to improve participant’s awareness of ‘environmental prediction’ hazards i.e. where the ultimate hazard is hidden from view. This is problematic, as these types of hazard have previously been shown to lead to the greatest differences between novice and experienced drivers (Crundall et al., 2012; Pradhan, Pollatsek, Knodler, & Fisher, 2009). In addition, the untrained control group did also show a slight reduction in collisions, and the untrained group had also demonstrated better performance on the simulator prior to training. This may be an indication that there was a slight practice effect of using the simulator, and that there was more room for the trained group to improve relative to the untrained group.
1.5.1.2 Anticipation Training
McKenna and Crick (1997) developed a training programme for novice drivers involving a classroom session, a group video session and a one-to-one session with video sequences. The focus for this training group was on encouraging participants to generate predictions about the likely outcomes of potential road hazards, with a lot of the emphasis on encouraging trainees to look further ahead in the visual field. The trainee group’s reaction times in a hazard perception test improved by about 0.5 seconds between the pre- and post-training tests, whereas there was no significant
17/12/2013 Ruth Madigan 26 change in a control group’s scores. A follow-up study showed that when prediction training and a general driver awareness training course were compared, only the prediction training led to significant improvements in reaction times (McKenna & Crick, 1997). The results of these studies suggest that prediction/anticipation training can be an effective means of training hazard perception reaction skills. However, the fact that only novice drivers were included in the studies means we have no knowledge of the level to which trained novice drivers hazard perception has improved. In addition, the novice drivers had up to four years’ experience, which is much higher than other hazard perception studies (e.g. Crundall et al., 2012; Fisher, Pollatsek, & Pradhan, 2006). Finally, as this study once again made use of a computer based hazard perception test, it is unclear as to how the training would generalise to actual driving behaviour (Groeger, 2000).
Fisher et al. (2006) and Pradhan et al. (2009) used the Risk Awareness and Perception Training (RAPT) package, a PC based training regime, to train drivers on recognising two different types of hazard. They focused on situations in which a threat could potentially materialise, in other words, situations containing hidden risks (e.g. a pedestrian that may be obscured from drivers as they approach a crossing). They claimed that near transfer would be maximised when the cues necessary to retrieve the knowledge in the situation to which transfer is needed are directly present in the training situation. Far transfer occurs when the principles needed to generalise what one has learned are explicitly abstracted for the learner, i.e. by explaining why a situation is potentially risky. The RAPT PC based training package contains scenarios where there is an inherent risk of a collision with another vehicle or pedestrian. The training programme involved showing participants a top-down, schematic view of a scenario accompanied with explanations about the risky aspects of that scenario. Participants were then presented with the perspective view snapshots for that scenario (similar to those used in the tests) and given feedback on their performance in identifying locations which should be monitored. In a simulator test, trained novice participants were found to be more likely than untrained participants to fixate more on areas of the road which could reduce their likelihood of a crash in both near and far transfer situations. This effect was apparent even up to five days after the training (Fisher et al., 2006). Similar findings were also obtained in an on-road driving test, although in that condition, the difference between the
groups was larger in the near transfer situations than in the far transfer ones (Pradhan et al., 2009). These results suggest that a PC based training programme can be successful in changing inexperienced young drivers gaze patterns, and that this relatively low-fidelity training can lead to both near and far transfer of learning to real world situations. However, there were no clear definitions of what near and far transfer situations entailed so the degree of transfer is unclear. In addition, we do not know if these changes in behaviour would last over time.
Chapman, Underwood and Roberts (2002) trained novices to look at critical areas of hazard perception clips, incorporating aspects of both verbal commentary training and hazard anticipation training. Participants were asked to provide a running commentary on films of potentially dangerous driving situations with and without the support of markers overlaid on the screen which represented the areas experienced drivers looked at. They were then asked to view more driving clips and to anticipate what was going to happen next in the scene. This led to shorter fixation durations and a wider horizontal spread of search for novice drivers when they viewed subsequent hazard perception clips. This effect transferred onto real-world driving, with the trained novice drivers showing an increased spread of horizontal visual search after the training intervention. The visual search patterns of untrained novice drivers did not change. In a follow up evaluation approximately three months later, the changes in eye-movements were still detectable in a simulator setting but not on the real roads. This study demonstrates the potential for training novices’ visual search patterns using commentary and anticipation training, but also the limited transfer from simulated environments to the real world environment as evidenced by the diminishing effect over time.
Wang et al. (2010) included three different parts in their driving training programme. Firstly, participants drove through a number of hazardous situations in a driving simulator. They then viewed a playback video of their own hazard handling performance as well as a video of an experienced drivers’ hazard handling performance. This training incorporated aspects of both error training and anticipation training, along with training in detection and recognition of hazards. Hazard handling performance was rated by two independent assistants. It was found that trained novices had better hazard handling scores than untrained novices.
17/12/2013 Ruth Madigan 28 However, as the average consistency rate between the two assessors was 69.5%, it is possible that these results do not provide a fully objective measure of performance. The trained novices also anticipated hazards designed to evaluate both near (i.e. the same risk elements in a different traffic environment) and far transfer (i.e. the same strategies were required to detect potential hazards) significantly better than untrained novices in a post-training test. However, the measure of hazard anticipation was weak as it involved participants watching a replay of their driving test and giving self-ratings of the extent to which they had anticipated the hazard. Analyses of speed behaviour showed that trained novices drove significantly more slowly throughout the test drive. Trained participants also tended to reduce their speed more dramatically in the final 30 metres before the onset of hazards than the untrained group. These results show the benefits of incorporating a number of different training methods into any driving intervention. Participants hazard anticipation skills were improved, as highlighted by their speed behaviour. In addition, levels of mental workload were decreased. However, the article does not provide huge detail on the content of the training so it is difficult to evaluate where any improvements in performance might have occurred. In addition there was no baseline measure of behaviour so it is possible that the trained group were better than the untrained group prior to any training.