This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Efficacy and Usage Patterns for Three Types of Rearview Camera Displays During Backing Up
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Published April 16, 2012 by SAE International in United States
Annotation ability available
The usage of rearview camera displays and their effectiveness on drivers' capability to avoid unexpected obstacles during four common backing tasks (i.e., parallel parking, backing between two vehicles, backing down a driveway, backing out of a garage) was evaluated on a closed-course with stationary confederate vehicles, signage, and lane markings. The obstacle consisted of either a stationary or a moving target that appeared to the rear of the test vehicle. Eye movements and vehicle dynamics measurements (i.e., longitudinal acceleration, brake displacement) were recorded, in addition to obstacle hit/avoidance rates. Performance was assessed for four rearview camera (RVC) conditions: small center-stack display (SD), large center-stack display (i.e., navigation screen) (LD), in-mirror display (IMD), and no display (ND). Test participants comprised drivers of both sexes between the ages of 18 and 68 who reported having no experience with rearview camera displays in their current or previously owned vehicles. The results showed that having an RVC display dramatically improved obstacle avoidance rates under the conditions tested. Higher avoidance rates were documented when the IMD or SD was available compared to the LD. Not all drivers relied upon RVC displays, however, even when these were available to them. Usage rates were lowest for the large center-stack display and highest for the IMD. Eye movement data indicate that drivers spent a higher proportion of time during backing tasks looking at the IMD compared to the other two displays without severe decreases in the duration of time spent looking at the rearview and side mirrors. Thus, under certain backing conditions, RVC displays, and the IMD in particular, have the potential to aid drivers in detecting and avoiding collisions while being used in conjunction with other sources of visual information (e.g., rearview and side mirrors).
CitationKim, R., Rauschenberger, R., Heckman, G., Young, D. et al., "Efficacy and Usage Patterns for Three Types of Rearview Camera Displays During Backing Up," SAE Technical Paper 2012-01-0287, 2012, https://doi.org/10.4271/2012-01-0287.
- Horrey, WJ Wickens, CD 2004 Driving and side task performance: The effects of display clutter, separation, and modality Human Factors 46 611 624
- Lamble, D Laakso, M Summala, H 1999 Detection thresholds in car following situations and peripheral vision: Implications for positioning of visually demanding in-car displays Ergonomics 42 807 815
- Lerner, ND Harpster, JL Huey, RW Steinberg, GV 1997 Driver backing-behavior research: Implications for backup warning devices Transportation Research Record 1573, Paper No. 970675 23 29
- Llaneras, R. Neurauter, M. Green, C. “Factors Moderating the Effectiveness of Rear Vision Systems: What Performance-Shaping Factors Contribute to Drivers' Detection and Response to Unexpected In-Path Obstacles When Backing?” SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-0549 2011 10.4271/2011-01-0549
- Mazzae, EN Barickman, F Baldwin, GHS Ranney, T 2008 On-road study of drivers' use of rearview video systems NHTSA, DOT 811 024
- Mazzae, EN 2010 Drivers' use of rearview video and sensor-based backing aid systems in a non-laboratory setting NHTSA-2010-0162
- McLaughlin, SB Hankey, JM Green, CA Kiefer, RJ 2001 Driver performance evaluation of two rear parking aids
- Mourant, R. Donahue, R. “Mirror Sampling Characteristics of Drivers,” SAE Technical Paper 740964 1974 10.4271/740964
- NHTSA 2010 FMVSS, Rearview Mirrors; FMVSS, Low-Speed Vehicles Phase-In Reporting Requirements; Proposed Rule Federal Register 75 234 76186 76250
- Pastor, G Tejero, P Choliz, M Roca, J 2006 Rear-view mirror use, driver alertness and road type: An empirical study using EEG measures Transportation Research Part F 9 286 297