These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15960097)

  • 1. Design and evaluation of a prototype rear obstacle detection and driver warning system.
    Llaneras RE; Green CA; Kiefer RJ; Chundrlik WJ; Altan OD; Singer JP
    Hum Factors; 2005; 47(1):199-215. PubMed ID: 15960097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparison of tactile, visual, and auditory warnings for rear-end collision prevention in simulated driving.
    Scott JJ; Gray R
    Hum Factors; 2008 Apr; 50(2):264-75. PubMed ID: 18516837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Driving with a partially autonomous forward collision warning system: how do drivers react?
    Muhrer E; Reinprecht K; Vollrath M
    Hum Factors; 2012 Oct; 54(5):698-708. PubMed ID: 23156616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Predicting crash-relevant violations at stop sign-controlled intersections for the development of an intersection driver assistance system.
    Scanlon JM; Sherony R; Gabler HC
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2016 Sep; 17 Suppl 1():59-65. PubMed ID: 27586104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Real-world effects of rear automatic braking and other backing assistance systems.
    Cicchino JB
    J Safety Res; 2019 Feb; 68():41-47. PubMed ID: 30876519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Buick Lucerne drivers' experiences with rear parking sensors.
    Cicchino JB; Eichelberger AH; McCartt AT
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2015; 16(2):196-201. PubMed ID: 24874650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Human performance models and rear-end collision avoidance algorithms.
    Brown TL; Lee JD; McGehee DV
    Hum Factors; 2001; 43(3):462-82. PubMed ID: 11866201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Influence of age and proximity warning devices on collision avoidance in simulated driving.
    Kramer AF; Cassavaugh N; Horrey WJ; Becic E; Mayhugh JL
    Hum Factors; 2007 Oct; 49(5):935-49. PubMed ID: 17915608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Heavy-truck drivers' following behavior with intervention of an integrated, in-vehicle crash warning system: a field evaluation.
    Bao S; LeBlanc DJ; Sayer JR; Flannagan C
    Hum Factors; 2012 Oct; 54(5):687-97. PubMed ID: 23156615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Collision warning timing, driver distraction, and driver response to imminent rear-end collisions in a high-fidelity driving simulator.
    Lee JD; McGehee DV; Brown TL; Reyes ML
    Hum Factors; 2002; 44(2):314-34. PubMed ID: 12452276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Volvo drivers' experiences with advanced crash avoidance and related technologies.
    Eichelberger AH; McCartt AT
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2014; 15(2):187-95. PubMed ID: 24345022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Lane change warning threshold based on driver perception characteristics.
    Wang C; Sun Q; Fu R; Li Z; Zhang Q
    Accid Anal Prev; 2018 Aug; 117():164-174. PubMed ID: 29704793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Imperfect in-vehicle collision avoidance warning systems can aid drivers.
    Maltz M; Shinar D
    Hum Factors; 2004; 46(2):357-66. PubMed ID: 15359683
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Backing collisions: a study of drivers' eye and backing behaviour using combined rear-view camera and sensor systems.
    Hurwitz DS; Pradhan A; Fisher DL; Knodler MA; Muttart JW; Menon R; Meissner U
    Inj Prev; 2010 Apr; 16(2):79-84. PubMed ID: 20363812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Investigation into the effect of an intersection crash warning system on driving performance in a simulator.
    Chen H; Cao L; Logan DB
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2011 Oct; 12(5):529-37. PubMed ID: 21972864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Perfect timing: urgency, not driving situations, influence the best timing to activate warnings.
    Werneke J; Kleen A; Vollrath M
    Hum Factors; 2014 Mar; 56(2):249-59. PubMed ID: 24689246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Multisensory in-car warning signals for collision avoidance.
    Ho C; Reed N; Spence C
    Hum Factors; 2007 Dec; 49(6):1107-14. PubMed ID: 18074709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Developing an inverse time-to-collision crash alert timing approach based on drivers' last-second braking and steering judgments.
    Kiefer RJ; LeBlanc DJ; Flannagan CA
    Accid Anal Prev; 2005 Mar; 37(2):295-303. PubMed ID: 15667816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A farewell to brake reaction times? Kinematics-dependent brake response in naturalistic rear-end emergencies.
    Markkula G; Engström J; Lodin J; Bärgman J; Victor T
    Accid Anal Prev; 2016 Oct; 95(Pt A):209-26. PubMed ID: 27450793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. How does a collision warning system shape driver's brake response time? The influence of expectancy and automation complacency on real-life emergency braking.
    Ruscio D; Ciceri MR; Biassoni F
    Accid Anal Prev; 2015 Apr; 77():72-81. PubMed ID: 25700125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.