Comparing two driving simulation scenarios for steering and speed control
J.M. Jenkins, N. Seck
Pages: 21-32
Abstract:
A driving simulation experiment was conducted to test the effectiveness and relative efficiencies of two practice scenarios, each designed to present a series of lane changes for participants to negotiate. Scenario 1 included 50 lane changes and participants were instructed to follow the posted speed limits, which ranged from 48 km/h (30 mph) to 105 km/h (65 mph). Scenario 2 included 20 lane changes and participants began driving at 80 km/h (50 mph). They were told to increase their speed as they were comfortable to do so. In both scenarios, the lane changes were identified using sets of pylons flanking the desired travel lanes. Measures of steering and speed control were recorded. A cost function was developed as the product of the absolute value of the lane position of the simulator vehicle at the moment the vehicle reached each set of pylons and the square of the travel time between successive sets of pylons. The cost and cumulative cost per trial values were tested for whether they fit a power curve, indicating whether the participants learned, were still learning, or were not learning to interact with the simulator. Both scenarios were shown to be effective. The differences in the means and variances of the cumulative cost per trial values were tested. The results support the notion that Scenario 1 was more efficient, as indicated by lower variances after 20 lane changes. Additionally, the participants driving Scenario 2 had greater travel times between lane changes than those driving Scenario 1. The drawn conclusion is that directing participants to drive a range of speeds while making lane changes helps in their learning to interact with the driving simulator.
Keywords: practice scenario; steering control; speed control
2025 ISSUES
2024 ISSUES
LXII - April 2024LXIII - July 2024LXIV - November 2024Special 2024 Vol1Special 2024 Vol2Special 2024 Vol3Special 2024 Vol4
2023 ISSUES
LIX - April 2023LX - July 2023LXI - November 2023Special Issue 2023 Vol1Special Issue 2023 Vol2Special Issue 2023 Vol3
2022 ISSUES
LVI - April 2022LVII - July 2022LVIII - November 2022Special Issue 2022 Vol1Special Issue 2022 Vol2Special Issue 2022 Vol3Special Issue 2022 Vol4
2021 ISSUES
LIII - April 2021LIV - July 2021LV - November 2021Special Issue 2021 Vol1Special Issue 2021 Vol2Special Issue 2021 Vol3
2020 ISSUES
2019 ISSUES
Special Issue 2019 Vol1Special Issue 2019 Vol2Special Issue 2019 Vol3XLIX - November 2019XLVII - April 2019XLVIII - July 2019
2018 ISSUES
Special Issue 2018 Vol1Special Issue 2018 Vol2Special Issue 2018 Vol3XLIV - April 2018XLV - July 2018XLVI - November 2018
2017 ISSUES
Special Issue 2017 Vol1Special Issue 2017 Vol2Special Issue 2017 Vol3XLI - April 2017XLII - July 2017XLIII - November 2017
2016 ISSUES
Special Issue 2016 Vol1Special Issue 2016 Vol2Special Issue 2016 Vol3XL - November 2016XXXIX - July 2016XXXVIII - April 2016
2015 ISSUES
Special Issue 2015 Vol1Special Issue 2015 Vol2XXXV - April 2015XXXVI - July 2015XXXVII - November 2015
2014 ISSUES
Special Issue 2014 Vol1Special Issue 2014 Vol2Special Issue 2014 Vol3XXXII - April 2014XXXIII - July 2014XXXIV - November 2014
2013 ISSUES
2012 ISSUES
2011 ISSUES
2010 ISSUES
2009 ISSUES
2008 ISSUES
2007 ISSUES
2006 ISSUES
2005 ISSUES
2004 ISSUES
2003 ISSUES