臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

隨著家用汽車的普及，全臺灣持有駕照的人數逐年增加，比例已達50%以上，然而，因駕駛觀念不佳或行駛技術不成熟而導致之交通事故仍所在多有，其中尤以「變換車道或方向不當」為造成死亡事故的最主要原因。為解決此問題，近年來先駕駛輔助系統（Advanced Driver Assistance System, ADAS）廣為發展，其中車道變換輔助系統（Lane Change Assist）與盲點偵測系統（Blind Spot Detection System）等技術已趨純熟，國際標準組織（ISO）亦針對車道變換輔助系統訂定相關標準，然而在提示的形式上尚無公認的規範。目前市面上各種車道變換輔助系統間警示方式各異，儘管欲傳達的訊息（提醒駕駛車側狀況）是一樣的，卻可能造成不同的解讀或是轉換適應上的困難。因此，本研究根據Endsley所提出之情境知覺模型（Situation Awareness Model）探討警示呈現形式對於駕駛績效與工作負荷的影響，以找出較為理想之設計。
本研究招募屬於高肇事傾向年齡層（20~26歲）、且具有兩年以上駕駛經驗（包含行駛於高速公路）之男性與女性各10位，並應用駕駛憤怒量表（Driving Anger Scale）初步將可能過於保守或冒險之駕駛者排除，透過駕駛模擬器執行於高速道路上的駕駛任務。研究參與者必須在四種不同情境知覺等級（無提示、感知、理解、或預測）的警示輔助下變換車道，藉由客觀參數（方向盤轉動率、反應時間、完成時間等）與主觀工作負荷（NASA-TLX）比較其間的差異，以找出最有助於駕駛安全的警示設計；另外也將觀察男、女性在不同等級的提示下的績效表現，探討是否存在各自適用的警示設計。
研究結果顯示，當旁車位於駕駛視線的死角時，輔助系統之提示效果最為明顯，其中第三等級（預測）之提示可讓駕駛有最少的反應時間與完成時間，其與第二等級（理解）之提示的效果皆明顯優於第一等級（感知）之提示與無系統提示的狀況，但第二、三等級間的差異並不顯著；另男、女性分別偏好第二、三等級之系統提示，因此建議可設計多種等級之備選提示，讓駕駛依需求自行選擇。本研究之發現可供車道變換輔助系統之開發廠商參考，以協助發展出更貼近駕駛需求之系統，藉此降低交通事故的發生率。

With the rising popularity of private automobiles, the number of driver's license holders in Taiwan increases year by year. It has now reached more than 50% of the population in Taiwan. However, traffic accidents due to poor driving awareness or skills are still quite common, in which "improper lane changing" is the main cause of fatal accidents on the highway. Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) was hence developed to solve this problem, among which the Lane Change Assist (LCA) and the Blind Spot Detection System (BSDS) had become mature and been used widely. In the meantime, relevant standards for the LCA are developed by ISO. Nevertheless, so far there is no agreement on the design of warning signals used in LCA. Currently, a variety of warnings of LCA may lead to misunderstanding of the representations or conflicts with prior knowledge, even though the information to be conveyed is exactly the same. Thus, this study aims to investigate the effect of situation awareness level of warnings in LCA on driving performance and workload, so as to enhance safety through designs that help drivers receive the information more effectively and accurately.
Ten males and ten females who belong to the high-risk groups of traffic accidents (20-26 years old) with more than two years of driving experience were recruited (including driving on the highway). Besides, those who are too conservative or too risky were excluded by using the Driving Anger Scale. A driving simulator was used to perform driving tasks on a highway. Participants had to change lanes with the use of LCA presented in four situation awareness levels (no warning, perception, comprehension, or projection). The differences in objective parameters (steering wheel rate, success rate of task execution, and reaction time) and perceived workload (NASA-TLX) were analyzed, in order to identify the design that is most helpful for driving safety. The interaction between driver’s gender and warning level were also investigated to see whether the recommended warning levels are different between the two groups.
The results showed that the warning system provides the greatest help when the neighboring vehicle appears in the blind spot area. Besides, drivers had the last reaction time and completion time under the LCA warning of the third level (projection). LCA of both the second (comprehension) and third levels yielded significantly better performance than the first level (perception) and the case without LCA. However, the difference between the second and third levels is not significant. According to the subjective responses, males preferred the second level, while females preferred the third level. Therefore, it is recommended to provide LCA with multiple levels of situation awareness, so as to enable the driver to choose the preferred one. Overall, the findings of this study have the potential to benefit developers of LCA by facilitating the designs that better meet the needs of drivers and help reduce traffic accidents.

摘要 i
Abstract ii
一、緒論 1
1.1. 研究背景與動機 1
1.2. 研究範圍及目的 4
1.3. 研究架構 5
二、文獻回顧 8
2.1. 情境知覺與車道變換 8
2.1.1汽車駕駛的情境知覺 8
2.1.3車道變換輔助系統 13
2.2.1駕駛年齡 17
2.2.2駕駛性別 19
2.2.3 與駕駛者有關之其他因素 20
2.3. 實驗情境與設備 21
2.3.1 駕駛模擬器 21
2.3.2 駕駛行為資訊蒐集 23
2.3.3心智負荷 25
2.4. 小結 26
三、研究方法 27
3.1.實驗設計 27
3.1.1實驗設備與環境 27
3.1.2 實驗內容與情境 28
3.1.3研究參與者 31
3.2.實驗因子設定 31
3.2.1自變數（independent variables） 31
3.2.2依變數（dependent variables） 33
3.2.3控制變數（controlled variable） 35
3.3實驗流程 36
3.4資料分析 37
四、研究結果 38
4.1駕駛行為與績效 40
4.1.1完成時間 40
4.1.2反應時間 42
4.1.3方向盤轉動率 44
4.2車道變換安全性（接近碰撞與碰撞次數） 46
4.3主觀工作負荷 46
4.4三因子變異數分析 48
4.4.1提示等級效應 49
4.4.2性別效應 50
4.4.3旁車行為效應 50
4.4.4交互作用 51
五、討論 55
5.1提示等級效應 55
5.2性別效應 57
5.3主觀感受 59
六、結論與建議 61
6.1結論與研究實際應用 61
6.2研究限制 61
6.3未來研究 62
參考文獻 63
附錄一：NASA-TLX中文版問卷 68
附錄二：研究倫理審查核可證明 70
附錄三：變異數分析表 72

中文部分：
1. 內政部警政署國道公路警察局（2016），歷年取締違規分析統計。
2. 公路總局（2016），機動車輛登記數。
3. 交通部（2014），自用小客車駕駛人男女比率。
4. 交通部臺灣區國道高速公路局（2016），民國99年至民國104年國道事故檢討分析。
5. 邱士軒（2007），性別及年齡差異對汽車駕駛的情境知覺之影響，國立清華大學工業工程與工程管理研究所，碩士論文。
6. 柳永青, 何晉亨, 傅幸梅, 2003, 實車影片與駕駛模擬對駕駛者時間認知差異之研究, 中國工業工程學會九十二年度年會(論文集)（CD-Rom）, 2003/12/06, 彰化(建國技術學院).
7. 胡順章（1993），「高速公路一般路段變換車道之特性分析」，淡江大學運輸管理學系，碩士論文。
8. 徐業良（2010），「高齡者的交通問題」，99 年度全國道路交通安全研討會-高齡者事故防制，桃園縣。
9. 翁華檀（2008），車內資訊設備對駕駛行為影響之研究，國立成功大學工業與資訊管理學系碩博士班，碩士論文。
10. 張鳳，李永娟，蔣麗（2010），「駕駛行為理論模型研究概述」，中國安全科學學報 ，20(2), 23-28.
11. 陳佳珮，方瓊瑤，陳世旺 (2002)，「高速公路上鄰近移動車輛之動向偵測」，師大學報:數理與科技類, 47(2), 1-26.
12. 曾平毅，黃益三，姜心怡（2013），「不同年齡層汽車駕駛人事故風險分析」，道路交通安全與執法研討會，桃園縣。
13. 楊紹琦（2006），「性別與年齡對於交通風險知覺的影響」，國立清華大學工業工程與工程管理學系，碩士論文。
14. 廖哲聖（2009），「憤怒駕駛傾向之量測與人格特質及性別角色之影響」，國立交通大學運輸科技與管理學系，碩士論文。
15. 錢海強（2009），「車輛側邊之盲點與車道偏離警示系統」，國立交通大學電機與控制工程系所，碩士論文。
16. 謝孟真（2014），美國國家航空暨太空總署工作心智負荷指標之中文化與信效度初探，長庚大學護理學系，碩士論文。
17. 鍾炳煌（2001），應用汽車駕駛模擬系統從事高速公路加速車道併入行為之研究-以類神經網路為分析工具，成功大學交通管理科學研究所，碩士論文。
 
英文部分：


1. Adam, J. J. (1999). Gender differences in choice reaction time: evidence for differential strategies. Ergonomics, 42(2), 327-335.
2. Ahmed, K. I. (1999). Modeling drivers' acceleration and lane changing behavior (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
3. Baldwin, C. L., & Coyne, J. T. (2003). Mental workload as a function of traffic density: Comparison of physiological, behavioral, and subjective indices. In Proceedings of the Second International Driving Symposium on Human Factors , 19-24.
4. Bevan, Nigel. and Curson, Ian. (1999). Planning and implementing user-centred design. In CHI'99 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 137-138.
5. Blana, E., (1996), “Driving Simulator Validation Studies: A Literature Review” ITS Working, Institute for Transportation Studies, University of Leeds UK, 480.
6. Breuer, J. J., Faulhaber, A., Frank, P., & Gleissner, S. (2007). Real world safety benefits of brake assistance systems. In 20th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, No.07-0103.
7. Brown, I. D., & Groeger, J. A. (1988). Risk perception and decision taking during the transition between novice and experienced driver status. Ergonomics, 31(4), 585-597.
8. Campbell, J.L., Richard, C.M., Brown, J.L., & McCallum, M. (2007). Crash Warning
System Interfaces: Human Factors Insights and Lessons Learned (Final Report DOT HS 810 697). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
9. Cerrelli, E. (1989). Older drivers, the age factor in traffic safety. (NHTSA Technical Report DOT HS 807 402): National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington.
10. Deffenbacher, J. L., Lynch, R. S., Oetting, E. R., & Swaim, R. C. (2002). The Driving Anger Expression Inventory: A measure of how people express their anger on the road. Behaviour research and therapy, 40(6), 717-737.
11. Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., & Lynch, R. S. (1994). Development of a driving anger scale. Psychological reports, 74(1), 83-91.
12. Department for Transport (2016). Renew your driving licence if you're 70 or over. From website: https://www.gov.uk/renew-driving-licence-at-70
13. Department of transport and main road（2015）Licensing Requirements for Drivers Aged 75 and Over. From website: https://www.support.transport.qld.gov.au/qt/formsdat.nsf/forms/S5041/$file/S5041
14. Endsley, M. R. (1993). A survey of situation awareness requirements in air-to-air combat fighters. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(2), 157-168.
15. Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(1), 32-64.
16. European Road Safety Observatory (2015). Annual Accident Report 2015 - Europa. From website: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/pdf/statistics/dacota/asr2015.pdf
17. Gipps, P. G. (1986). A model for the structure of lane-changing decisions. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 20(5), 403-414.
18. Gugerty, L. J., & Tirre, W. C. (2000). Individual differences in situation awareness. Situation awareness analysis and measurement, 249-276.
19. Guo, F., Wotring, B. M., & Antin, J. F. (2010). Evaluation of Lane Change Collision Avoidance Systems Using the National Advanced Driving Simulator (No. HS-811 332).
20. Gustafson, P. E. (1998). Gender differences in risk perception: theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Analysis, 18(6), 805-811.
21. Gwyther, H., & Holland, C. (2012). The effect of age, gender and attitudes on self-regulation in driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 45, 19-28.
22. Harbluk, J. L., Noy, Y. I., & Eizenman, M. (2002). The impact of cognitive distraction on driver visual behaviour and vehicle control (No. TP# 13889 E).
23. Hoc, J. M., El Jaafari, M., Forzy, J. F., Navarro, J., & Mars, F. (2008). User acceptance and effectiveness of warning and motor priming assistance devices in car driving. In Proceedings of European conference on human centred design for intelligent transport systems, 311.
24. ISO Standard 17387 .(2008). Intelligent transport systems - Lane change decision aid systems (LCDAS).
25. Kantowitz, B. H., & Simsek, O. (2001). Secondary-task measures of driver workload. Stress, workload and fatigue.
26. Kaptein, N., Theeuwes, J., & Van Der Horst, R. (1996). Driving simulator validity: Some considerations. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1550), 30-36.
27. Lahtela, K., Niemi, P., & Kuusela, V. (1985). Adult visual choice‐reaction time, age, sex and preparedness: A test of Welford's problem in a large population sample. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 26(1), 357-362.
28. Land, M. F. (1993). Eye-head coordination during driving. In Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1993.'Systems Engineering in the Service of Humans', Conference Proceedings, 490-494
29. Lee, A. Y. (1996). Performance of driver-vehicle in aborted lane change maneuvers (No. 960516). SAE Technical Paper.
30. Lee, S. E., Olsen, E. C., & Wierwille, W. W. (2004). A comprehensive examination of naturalistic lane-changes (No. HS-809 702,).
31. Lee, S., Klauer, S., Olsen, E., Simons-Morton, B., Dingus, T., Ramsey, D., & Ouimet, M. (2008). Detection of road hazards by novice teen and experienced adult drivers. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 26-32.
32. Lighthill, Michael J., and Gerald Beresford Whitham. (1955)."On kinematic waves. II. A theory of traffic flow on long crowded roads." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. Vol. 229. No. 1178. The Royal Society,
33. McCormick, I. A., Walkey, F. H., & Green, D. E. (1986). Comparative perceptions of driver ability—a confirmation and expansion. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 18(3), 205-208.
34. McLean, J. R., & Hoffmann, E. R. (1975). Steering reversals as a measure of driver performance and steering task difficulty. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 17(3), 248-256.
35. Mourant, R. R., & Rockwell, T. H. (1970). Mapping eye-movement patterns to the visual scene in driving: An exploratory study. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 12(1), 81-87.
36. NHTSA(2009).MotorTrend: Report: NHTSA Looking to Standardize Early Warning Crash, LaneDeparture Systems, from website: http://www.motortrend.com/news/report-nhtsa-looking-to-standardize-early-warning-crash-lane-departure-systems-5373/
37. Petzoldt, T., Bär, N., & Krems, J. F. (2009). Gender effects on lane change test (LCT) performance. In Proceedings of the 5th international driving symposium on human factors in driver assessment, training, and vehicle design, 90-96.
38. Radwin, R. G., Lee, J. D., & Akkas, O. (2017). Driver Movement Patterns Indicate Distraction and Engagement. Human Factors, 0018720817696496.
39. Rubio, S., Díaz, E., Martín, J., & Puente, J. M. (2004). Evaluation of subjective mental workload: A comparison of SWAT, NASA‐TLX, and workload profile methods. Applied Psychology, 53(1), 61-86.
40. Rumar, K. (1990). The basic driver error: late detection. Ergonomics, 33(10-11), 1281-1290.
41. Salmon, P. M., Stanton, N. A., Walker, G. H., Jenkins, D., Ladva, D., Rafferty, L., & Young, M. (2009). Measuring Situation Awareness in complex systems: Comparison of measures study. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39(3), 490-500.
42. Stanton, N. A., Dunoyer, A., & Leatherland, A. (2011). Detection of new in-path targets by drivers using Stop & Go Adaptive Cruise Control. Applied ergonomics, 42(4), 592-601.
43. Storie, V. J. (1977). Male and female car drivers: differences observed in accidents (No. TRRL Lab Rept. 761).
44. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. Journal of experimental psychology: Applied, 9(1), 23.
45. Talmadge, S., Chu, R., Eberhard, C., Jordan, K., & Moffa, P. (2000). Development of performance specifications for collisions avoidance systems for lane change crashes (No. HS-809 414).
46. Underwood, G., Ngai, A., & Underwood, J. (2013). Driving experience and situation awareness in hazard detection. Safety science, 56, 29-35.
47. Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806-820.
48. Weinstein, N. D. (1993). Testing four competing theories of health-protective behaviour. Health Psychology, 12, 324–333.
49. Wickens, C. D. (1991). Processing resources and attention. Multiple-task performance, 3-34.
50. Yagil, D. (1998). Gender and age-related differences in attitudes toward traffic laws and traffic violations. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1(2), 123-135.
51. Yang, Q., & Koutsopoulos, H. N. (1996). A microscopic traffic simulator for evaluation of dynamic traffic management systems. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 4(3), 113-129.
52. Young, K., Regan, M., & Hammer, M. (2007). Driver distraction: A review of the literature. Distracted driving, 379-405.