Submitted:
17 April 2023
Posted:
17 April 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Schema Theory
3. The Perceptual Cycle Model
4. The Experiment
4.1. Participants
4.2. The Survey Site
4.3. Data Collection and Analysis
4.3.1. Training of Test Subjects
4.3.2. Data Collection
4.3.3. Data Analysis
5. Results and Analysis
5.1. Code Frequencies
5.2. Perceptual Cycle Insights into Participants’ Behaviors
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
7.1. Summary of the Findings
7.2. Limitations and Future Scope of Study
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Banks, V.A.; Plant, K.L.; Stanton, N.A. Driver error or designer error: Using the Perceptual Cycle Model to explore the circumstances surrounding the fatal Tesla crash on 7th May 2016. Saf. Sci. 2018, 108, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartlett, F.C.; Bartlett, F.C. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1932. [Google Scholar]
- Debnath, M.; Hasanat-E-Rabbi, S.; Hamim, O.F.; Hoque, S.; McIlroy, R.C.; Plant, K.L.; Stanton, N.A. An investigation of urban pedestrian behaviour in Bangladesh using the Perceptual Cycle Model. Saf. Sci. 2021, 138, 105214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hamim, O.F.; Hasanat-E-Rabbi, S.; Debnath, M.; Hoque, S.; McIlroy, R.C.; Plant, K.L.; Stanton, N.A. Taking a mixed-methods approach to collision investigation: AcciMap, STAMP-CAST and PCM. Appl. Ergon. 2021, 100, 103650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Head, H.; Rivers WH, R.; Sherren, J.C.; Holmes, G.C.; Thompson, T.C.; Riddoch, G.C. Studies in Neurology, in Two Volumes; APA PsycBooks: Washington, DC, USA, 1920; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- WHO. Global Status Report on Road Safety, 2018. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565684 (accessed on 3 May 2022).
- Hole, G.J. The Psychology of Driving; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Hongjun, C.; Lianyu, W.; Jianxun, P. Research Method of Road Condition and Traffic Accident. J. Xi’an Highw. Univ. 2001, 21, 36–39. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, H.R.; Shi, L.C.; Tan, D.L. Preparation and Application of Children Traffic Safety Awareness Ques-tionnaire. China Saf. Sci. J. 2013, 23, 10–15. [Google Scholar]
- Lynch, K.M.; Banks, V.A.; Roberts, A.P.; Radcliffe, S.; Plant, K.L. Maritime autonomous surface ships: can we learn from unmanned aerial vehicle incidents using the perceptual cycle model? Ergonomics 2022, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mandler, J. M. Stories, Scripts, and Scenes: Aspects of Schema Theory; Psychology Press: London, UK, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Neisser, U. Cognition and Reality: Principles and Implications of Cognitive Psychology; W. H. Freeman and Company: New York, NY, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Norman, D.A. Categorization of action slips. Psychol. Rev. 1981, 88, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parnell, K.J.; Wynne, R.A.; Griffin, T.G.C.; Plant, K.L.; Stanton, N.A. Generating Design Requirements for Flight Deck Applications: Applying the Perceptual Cycle Model to Engine Failures on Take-off. Int. J. Human–Computer Interact. 2021, 37, 611–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parnell, K.J.; Wynne, R.A.; Plant, K.L.; Banks, V.A.; Thomas, G.G.; Stanton, N.A. Pilot decision-making during a dual engine failure on take-off: Insights from three different decision-making models. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. 2022, 32, 268–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piaget, J. The Child’s Conception of the World; London Kegan Paul, Trench & Trubner: London, UK, 1929. [Google Scholar]
- Plant, K.L.; Stanton, N.A. The Use of the Critical Decision Method to Elicit Schematic Processing in the Cockpit: A Pilot Study; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Plant, K.L.; Stanton, N.A. Why did the pilots shut down the wrong engine? Explaining errors in context using Schema Theory and the Perceptual Cycle Model. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 300–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plant, K.L.; Stanton, N. The explanatory power of Schema Theory: theoretical foundations and future applications in Ergonomics. Ergonomics 2013, 56, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Plant, K.L.; Stanton, N. What is on your mind? Using the perceptual cycle model and critical decision method to understand the decision-making process in the cockpit. Ergonomics 2013, 56, 1232–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Plant, K.L.; Stanton, N.A. All for one and one for all: Representing teams as a collection of individuals and an individual collective using a network perceptual cycle approach. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2014, 44, 777–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plant, K.L.; Stanton, N. The process of processing: exploring the validity of Neisser's perceptual cycle model with accounts from critical decision-making in the cockpit. Ergonomics 2015, 58, 909–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Plant, K.L.; Stanton, N.A. The development of the Schema World Action Research Method (SWARM) for the elicitation of perceptual cycle data. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 2016, 17, 376–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Revell, K.M.; Richardson, J.; Langdon, P.; Bradley, M.; Politis, I.; Thompson, S.; Skrypchuck, L.; O'Donoghue, J.; Mouzakitis, A.; Stanton, N.A. Breaking the cycle of frustration: Applying Neisser's Perceptual Cycle Model to drivers of semi-autonomous vehicles. Appl. Ergon. 2020, 85, 103037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salmon, P.M.; Stanton, N.; Young, K. Situation awareness on the road: review, theoretical and methodological issues, and future directions. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 2012, 13, 472–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanton, N.A.; Salmon, P.M.; Walker, G.H.; Jenkins, D. Genotype and phenotype schemata and their role in distributed situation awareness in collaborative systems. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 2009, 10, 43–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beijing Municipal Bureau of Statistics. Available online: https://nj.tjj.beijing.gov.cn/nj/main/2021-tjnj/zk/indexch.htm (accessed on 3 May 2022).
- Walker, G.H.; Stanton, N.A.; Salmon, P.M. Cognitive compatibility of motorcyclists and car drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 878–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]







| Concepts | Kernels Included |
|---|---|
| Traffic lights | Included concepts related to traffic lights and their status, such as “lights”, “green”, “red”, amber/yellow, “arrow”, “turning arrow”, “long” and “short” |
| Physical action | Included concepts relating to physical actions performed by the participants or other road users, such as “change”, “speed up/accelerate”, “break”, “move”, “go”, “walk”, “step on”, “slowing/ decelerating”, “stop”, “wait”, “pass”, “turn”; gear”, “horn”, “beep”, “following”, “avoid”, “ reduce” and “indicate” |
| Traffic | Included concepts related to other traffic in the surrounding environment, such as “traffic”, “motorbike”, “tricycle, “e-bike”, “pedestrian”, “motorcyclist”, “bicyclist”, “car”, “vehicle”, “electric vehicle”, “children”, “people” and “students” |
| Location | Included concepts referring to a location on the road, such as “behind”, “rear”, “close to”, “next to”, “parallel”, “side”, “encroach”, “bike lane”, “car lane”, “in front”, “ahead”, “side walk”, “road”, “intersection”, “forward”, “opposite”, “right side”, “left side” and “driveway” |
| Cognitive action | Included concepts relating to the visual and cognitive processes undertaken by participants, such as “checking”, “looking”, “observing” and “thinking” |
| Communication | Included concepts relating to communications between road users, such as “indicating”, “signalising”, “raising the hand” and “signal” |
| Conditions | Included concepts that refer to the current road and traffic conditions, such as “few/ light traffic”, “crowded”, “difficult”, “many”, “dangerous”, “clear”, “safe”, “normal”, “a lot” and “far away” |
| Speed | Included concepts relating to the participants and other road users’ speeds, such as, “speed”, “fast”, “slow”, “speed up” and “reduce speed” |
| Others | Included other concepts not covered by the categories above, such as “stupid”, “hot”, “cool”, “idiot”, “tired”, “dangerous”, “afraid”, “God”, “Oh” and “wow” |
| Schema | Action | World | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Average per Transcript |
Frequency | Average per Transcript |
Frequency | Average per Transcript |
|
| Pedestrian | 201 | 18.4 | 294 | 23.9 | 632 | 57.8 |
| Cyclist | 101 | 8.5 | 420 | 35.4 | 665 | 56.1 |
| E-cyclist | 142 | 14.2 | 318 | 31.9 | 537 | 53.9 |
| Concept | World (W) | Schema (S) | Action (A) | Sum | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | % | Count | % | Count | % | ||
| Physical action | 81 | 21.2 | 57 | 14.9 | 244 | 63.8 | 382 |
| Traffic light | 58 | 79.4 | 12 | 16.4 | 3 | 4.1 | 73 |
| Traffic | 307 | 94.7 | 16 | 4.9 | 1 | 0.3 | 324 |
| Condition | 99 | 66.4 | 48 | 32.2 | 2 | 1.3 | 149 |
| Speed | 3 | 15.7 | 7 | 36.8 | 9 | 47.4 | 19 |
| Cognitive action | 23 | 31.9 | 48 | 66.7 | 1 | 1.4 | 72 |
| Location | 40 | 75.4 | 13 | 24.5 | 0 | 0 | 53 |
| Communication | 3 | 100 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Others | 18 | 62.1 | 11 | 37.93 | 0 | 0 | 29 |
| Concept | World (W) | Schema (S) | Action (A) | Sum | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | % | Count | % | Count | % | ||
| Physical action | 92 | 20.2 | 42 | 9.2 | 321 | 70.5 | 455 |
| Traffic light | 65 | 95.6 | 3 | 4.4 | 0 | 0 | 68 |
| Traffic | 251 | 99.6 | 1 | 0.4 | 0 | 0 | 252 |
| Condition | 163 | 80.2 | 33 | 16.3 | 7 | 3.4 | 203 |
| Speed | 3 | 3.6 | 4 | 4.9 | 75 | 91.5 | 82 |
| Cognitive action | 29 | 70.7 | 12 | 29.3 | 0 | 0 | 41 |
| Location | 44 | 95.6 | 1 | 2.2 | 1 | 2.8 | 46 |
| Communication | 4 | 66.7 | 1 | 16.7 | 1 | 16.7 | 6 |
| Others | 14 | 77.8 | 4 | 22.2 | 0 | 0 | 18 |
| Concept | World | Schema | Action | Sum | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | % | Count | % | Count | % | ||
| Physical action | 24 | 4.47 | 13 | 9.2 | 282 | 88.68 | 319 |
| Traffic light | 80 | 14.90 | 2 | 1.4 | 9 | 2.83 | 91 |
| Traffic | 287 | 53.45 | 7 | 4.9 | 2 | 0.63 | 296 |
| Condition | 84 | 15.64 | 10 | 7.0 | 0 | 0.00 | 94 |
| Speed | 3 | 0.56 | 3 | 2.1 | 18 | 5.66 | 24 |
| Cognitive action | 18 | 3.35 | 97 | 68.3 | 4 | 1.26 | 119 |
| Location | 24 | 4.47 | 1 | 0.7 | 2 | 0.63 | 27 |
| Communication | 2 | 0.37 | 1 | 0.7 | 1 | 0.31 | 4 |
| Others | 15 | 2.79 | 8 | 5.6 | 0 | 0.0 | 23 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).