Effects of auditory and tactile warning on drivers’ response to hazard under noisy environment

Abstract

If the warning signal is presented via visual or auditory stimulus, the auditory or visual interference with other information might arise. On the other hand, if vibrotactile cue is used, such interference would be surely reduced. Therefore, it is expected that a vibrotactile signal would be very promising as a warning signal especially under noisy environment. In order to clarify the most suitable modality of cue (warning) to a visual hazard under noisy environment, the following two cues were used in the experiment: (1) auditory cue and (2) vibrotactile cue. The condition of SOA (Stimulus Onset Asynchrony) was set to 0 s, 0.5 s, and 1 s. The outside noise under the real-driving environment was recorded and edited for the experiment. The noise level inside the experimental chamber was 60 dB(A), 70 dB(A), 80 dB(A), and 90 dB(A). As a result, it was verified that the vibrotactile warning was more effective than the auditory warning. When the outside noise under the real-driving environment was used as the noise inside the experimental chamber, the reaction time to the auditory warning was not affected by the noise level.