Small target visibility is widely used to evaluate the quality of road lighting. It provides a link between lighting design and driving performance. However, it is based on a strong simplification of the driving task using psychophysical data from laboratory conditions. Using a driving simulator to mimic the real driving environment, the impact of driving workload on target detection performance in mesopic vision conditions has been evaluated. The target visibility level is studied with and without driving workload together with different luminance contrasts and target positions, with reference to the small target visibility scenario. The results show that the driving workload significantly reduces the target detection performance. Consequently, the visibility level value for driving conditions should be much higher (visibility level ≥21) than some currently recommended ones (visibility level = 7) to achieve the same detection rates. Effects of target position and contrast are found in a way consistent with the literature. In addition, results indicate that the small target visibility model used for road lighting is limited and needs to be improved for a reliable prediction of visual performance with driving workload.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Commission Internationale de l’Éclairage. Road lighting as an accident countermeasure. CIE Technical Report 93. Vienna: CIE, 1992.
2.
Mace DJ, Porter RJ. Fixed roadway lighting: the effect of lighting geometry and photometry on target visibility and driver comfort: 83rd Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, January 2004.
3.
BommelWJMVTekelenburgJ. Visibility research for road lighting based on a dynamic situation. Lighting Research and Technology1986; 18: 37–39.
4.
ReaMS. An overview of visual performance. Lighting Design and Application1982; 12: 35–41.
5.
MayeurABrémondRBastienJMC. Effects of the viewing context on target detection. Implications for road lighting design. Applied Ergonomics2010; 41: 461–468.
6.
Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage. An analytic model for describing the influence of lighting parameters upon visual performance. Publication CIE 19/2.1. Paris: CIE, 1981.
7.
ReaMSOuelletteMJ. Relative visual performance: a basis for application. Lighting Research and Technology1991; 23: 135–144.
8.
AdrianW. Visibility levels under night-time driving conditions. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society1987; 16: 3–12.
9.
HurdenASmithPEvansGHarlowABuntingABarburJ. Visual performance at mesopic light levels: an empirical model. Lighting Research and Technology1999; 31: 127–131.
10.
MayeurABrémondRBastienJMC. Effect of task and eccentricity of the target on detection thresholds in mesopic vision: implications for road lighting. Human Factors2008; 50: 712–721.
11.
PattenCJDKircherAÖstlundJNilssonLSvensonO. Driver experience and cognitive workload in different traffic environments. Accident Analysis and Prevention2006; 38: 887–894.
12.
BrémondRBodardVDumontENouailles-MayeurA. Target visibility level and detection distance on a driving simulator. Lighting Research and Technology2013; 45: 76–89.
13.
BulloughJD. Visual performance from automobile headlamps along high-speed curves. Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences2009; 3: 35–42.
14.
LingardRReaM. Off-axis detection at mesopic light levels in a driving context. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society2002; 31: 33–39.
15.
AkashiYReaM. Peripheral detection while driving under a mesopic light level. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society2002; 31: 85–94.
16.
GibbonsRBTerryTBhagavathulaRMeyerJLewisA. Applicability of mesopic factors to the driving task. Lighting Research and Technology2016; 48: 70–82.
17.
AlferdinckJWAM. Target detection and driving behaviour measurements in a driving simulator at mesopic light levels. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics2006; 26: 264–280.
18.
Helsinki University of Technology Lighting Laboratory. MOVE Mesopic Optimisation of Visual Efficiency: Performance Based Model for Mesopic Photometry. Espoo, Finland: HUT, 2005.
19.
CrundallDEUnderwoodGJChapmanPR. Peripheral detection rates in drivers. Vision in Vehicles1999; 7: 261–269.
20.
PattenCJDKircherAÖstlundJNilssonL. Using mobile telephones: cognitive workload and attention resource allocation. Accident Analysis and Prevention2004; 36: 341–350.
21.
AkashiYReaMSBulloughJD. Driver decision making in response to peripheral moving targets under mesopic light levels. Lighting Research and Technology2007; 39: 53–67.
22.
Gibbons RB, Hankey JM. Enhanced Night Visibility Series, Volume IX: Phase II – Characterization of Experimental Objects. Publication No. FHWA-HRT-04-140. Contract No. DTFH61-98-C-00049. McLean, VA: FHWA, 2005.
23.
MayeurABremondRBastienJMC. The effect of the driving activity on target detection as a function of the visibility level: implications for road lighting. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour2010; 13: 115–128.
24.
AdrianW. Visibility of targets: Model for calculation. Lighting Research and Technology1989; 21: 181–188.
25.
BulloughJDReaMS. Simulated driving performance and peripheral detection at mesopic and low photopic light levels. Lighting Research and Technology2000; 32: 194–198.
26.
BoycePR. Human Factors in Lighting, 2nd Edition. London: Taylor and Francis, 2003.
27.
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. ANSI/IESNA RP-8-00 American National Standard for Roadway Lighting, New York: IESNA, 2000.
28.
Association Francaise d’Eclairage. Recommendations Relatives a' l’Eclairage des Voies Publiques (Guidelines for public road lighting). Paris: AFE, 2002.
29.
Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR). Road lighting 2004–2005 (European Norm: 2004-2005. No. 13 201).
30.
BlackwellHR. Contrast thresholds of the human eye. Journal of the Optical Society of America1946; 36: 624–643.
31.
Gallagher VP, Meguire PG. Driver visual needs in night driving. Transportation Research Board Special Report 156. Washington, DC: TRB, 1975.
32.
IsingKW. Threshold visibility levels required for night-time pedestrian detection in a modified Adrian/CIE visibility model. Leukos2008; 5: 63–75.
33.
Ising KW, Fricker TRC, Lawrence JM, Siegmund G. Threshold visibility levels for the Adrian visibility model under nighttime driving conditions. SAE Technical Paper 2003-010294, 2003.
34.
HillsBL. Visibility under night driving conditions: part 2. Field measurements using disc obstacles and a pedestrian dummy. Lighting Research and Technology1975; 7: 251–258.
35.
AdrianW. Fundamentals of roadway lighting. Light and Engineering2004; 12: 57–71.
36.
Adrian W, Stemprok R. Required visibility levels in road scenes at night time driving: Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Automotive Lighting, Darmstadt, 27–28 September 2005.
37.
BrémondR. Quality indexes for road lighting: a review: 26th Session of the CIE, China: Beijing, 2007, pp. 4–11.
38.
ReaMS. Visibility criteria and application techniques for roadway lighting. Transportation Research Record1989; 1247: 12–16.
39.
RossDK. Task lighting – yet another view. Lighting Design and Application1978; 8: 37–43.
40.
YonemuraGT. Criteria for recommending lighting levels. Lighting Research and Technology1981; 13: 113–129.
41.
ReaMSBulloughJDZhouY. A method for assessing the visibility benefits of roadway lighting. Lighting Research and Technology2010; 42: 215–241.
42.
CohenJ. Eta-squared and partial eta-squared in fixed factor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement1973; 33: 107–112.
43.
CohenJ. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Journal of the American Statistical Association1988; 2: 19–74.
44.
PlainisSMurrayIJ. Neurophysiological interpretation of human visual reaction times: effect of contrast, spatial frequency and luminance. Neuropsychologia2000; 38: 1555–1564.
45.
Lecocq J. Visibility level in outdoor lighting. Adrian model applied to spherical cap targets: Proceedings of the 22th Session of the CIE, Melbourne, Australia, Vienna: CIE, 1991, Vol. 1, Part 2: 48–51.
46.
LecocqJ. Calculation of the visibility level of spherical targets in road. Lighting Research and Technology1999; 31: 171–175.
47.
BremondRDumontELedouxVMayeurA. Photometric measurements for Visibility Level computations. Lighting Research and Technology2011; 42: 119–128.
48.
Brémond R, Mayeur A. Some drawbacks of the visibility level as an index of visual performance while driving: Proceedings of the 27th Session of the CIE, Sun City, South Africa, Vienna: CIE, 9–16 June, 2011: 1140–1143.
49.
Weston HC. The relation between illumination and visual efficiency-the effect of brightness contrast. Industrial Health Research Board Report 87. London: HMSO, 1945.
