↓ Skip to main content

Drivers' decision-making when attempting to cross an intersection results from choice between affordances

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Drivers' decision-making when attempting to cross an intersection results from choice between affordances
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.01026
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geoffrey Marti, Antoine H. P. Morice, Gilles Montagne

Abstract

In theory, a safe approach to an intersection implies that drivers can simultaneously manage two scenarios: they either choose to cross or to give way to an oncoming vehicle. In this article we formalize the critical time for safe crossing (CT cross ) and the critical time for safe stopping (CT stop ) to represent crossing and stopping possibilities, respectively. We describe these critical times in terms of affordances and empirically test their respective contribution to the driver's decision-making process. Using a driving simulator, three groups of participants drove cars with identical acceleration capabilities and different braking capabilities. They were asked to try to cross an intersection where there was an oncoming vehicle, if they deemed the maneuver to be safe. If not, they could decide to stop or, as a last resort, make an emergency exit. The intersections were identical among groups. Results showed that although the crossing possibilities (CT cross ) were the same for all groups, there were between-group differences in crossing frequency. This suggests that stopping possibilities (CT stop ) play a role in the driver's decision-making process, in addition to the crossing possibilities. These results can be accounted for by a behavioral model of decision making, and provide support for the hypothesis of choice between affordances.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 30%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 13%
Researcher 4 10%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 11 28%
Psychology 7 18%
Neuroscience 4 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 10 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2020.
All research outputs
#13,354,251
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,983
of 7,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,563
of 352,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#102
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,145 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,112 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.