The Impact of Design Factors on Drivers' and Non-Drivers' Comprehension of Variable Message Signs.

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Ana Hernando, Antonio Lucas-Alba, Andrés S Lombas, Maria Teresa Blanch
{"title":"The Impact of Design Factors on Drivers' and Non-Drivers' Comprehension of Variable Message Signs.","authors":"Ana Hernando, Antonio Lucas-Alba, Andrés S Lombas, Maria Teresa Blanch","doi":"10.3390/bs15091288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study examines differences in comprehension between drivers and non-drivers when interpreting variable message signs (VMSs) combining three elements-a pictogram, an arrow, and a city name-to indicate temporary traffic events (e.g., \"congestion before Lyon\"). A total of 101 participants (51 non-drivers) were shown VMS displays reporting an event associated with one of four cities and were asked to identify the event's location (before or after the city). The experiment employed a mixed factorial design. Two between-subject factors were included: Driving License (present vs. absent) and Route Listing (present vs. absent). Four within-subject factors were manipulated: Complementary Message (present vs. absent), Landmark Order (bottom-up vs. top-down), Event Location (before vs. after), and Arrow Function (explicit vs. generic). The dependent variable was the accuracy of location identification. The results showed that, for drivers, the most effective combination was bottom-up order with an explicit arrow, followed by bottom-up with a generic arrow, and then top-down with an explicit arrow. For non-drivers, no significant differences were found between these combinations. However, comprehension decreased across both groups when the message used a top-down order and a generic arrow. Overall, the data suggest that the G1c template from the 1968 Convention is not effective for either group. Prior driving experience seems to favor one specific design, the bottom-up order with explicit arrow, while non-drivers perceive all functionally viable options-including that one-as equally valid.</p>","PeriodicalId":8742,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Sciences","volume":"15 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12466819/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15091288","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examines differences in comprehension between drivers and non-drivers when interpreting variable message signs (VMSs) combining three elements-a pictogram, an arrow, and a city name-to indicate temporary traffic events (e.g., "congestion before Lyon"). A total of 101 participants (51 non-drivers) were shown VMS displays reporting an event associated with one of four cities and were asked to identify the event's location (before or after the city). The experiment employed a mixed factorial design. Two between-subject factors were included: Driving License (present vs. absent) and Route Listing (present vs. absent). Four within-subject factors were manipulated: Complementary Message (present vs. absent), Landmark Order (bottom-up vs. top-down), Event Location (before vs. after), and Arrow Function (explicit vs. generic). The dependent variable was the accuracy of location identification. The results showed that, for drivers, the most effective combination was bottom-up order with an explicit arrow, followed by bottom-up with a generic arrow, and then top-down with an explicit arrow. For non-drivers, no significant differences were found between these combinations. However, comprehension decreased across both groups when the message used a top-down order and a generic arrow. Overall, the data suggest that the G1c template from the 1968 Convention is not effective for either group. Prior driving experience seems to favor one specific design, the bottom-up order with explicit arrow, while non-drivers perceive all functionally viable options-including that one-as equally valid.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

设计因素对驾驶员和非驾驶员对可变信息标志理解的影响。
本研究考察了驾驶员和非驾驶员在解释可变信息标志(VMSs)时的理解差异。可变信息标志由三个元素组成:象形文字、箭头和城市名称,以指示临时交通事件(例如,“里昂前的拥堵”)。共有101名参与者(51名非司机)观看了与四个城市之一相关的事件报告VMS显示,并被要求确定事件的位置(在城市之前或之后)。本实验采用混合因子设计。两个主体间因素包括:驾驶执照(出席vs缺席)和路线清单(出席vs缺席)。受试者内部的四个因素被操纵:补充信息(存在vs不存在)、里程碑顺序(自下而上vs自上而下)、事件位置(之前vs之后)和箭头功能(明确vs一般)。因变量为位置识别的准确性。结果表明,对于驱动者而言,最有效的组合是自下而上顺序加明确箭头,其次是自下而上顺序加通用箭头,最后是自上而下顺序加明确箭头。对于非驾驶员,这些组合之间没有发现显著差异。然而,当消息使用自顶向下的顺序和通用箭头时,两组的理解能力都下降了。总的来说,数据表明1968年公约的G1c模板对两组都无效。先前的驾驶经验似乎倾向于一种特定的设计,即带有明确箭头的自下而上的顺序,而非驾驶员则认为所有功能可行的选项——包括那个选项——都是同样有效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Behavioral Sciences
Behavioral Sciences Social Sciences-Development
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
429
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信