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 *

95 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26327270)

  • 1. Differences in driving performance due to headway distances and gender: the application of jerk cost function.
    Choi JS; Kim HS; Shin YH; Choi MH; Chung SC; Min BC; Tack GR
    Int J Occup Saf Ergon; 2015; 21(1):111-7. PubMed ID: 26327270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The effects of disruption in attention on driving performance patterns: analysis of jerk-cost function and vehicle control data.
    Choi JS; Kim HS; Kang DW; Choi MH; Kim HS; Hong SP; Yu NR; Lim DW; Min BC; Tack GR; Chung SC
    Appl Ergon; 2013 Jul; 44(4):538-43. PubMed ID: 23217629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Preferred time headway in car-following and individual differences in perceptual-motor skills.
    van Winsum W
    Percept Mot Skills; 1998 Dec; 87(3 Pt 1):863-73. PubMed ID: 9885050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Driving performance changes of middle-aged experienced taxi drivers due to distraction tasks during unexpected situations.
    Kim HS; Choi MH; Choi JS; Kim HJ; Hong SP; Jun JH; Tack GR; Kim B; Min UC; Lim DW; Chung SC
    Percept Mot Skills; 2013 Oct; 117(2):411-26. PubMed ID: 24611246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Trade-off between jerk and time headway as an indicator of driving style.
    Itkonen TH; Pekkanen J; Lappi O; Kosonen I; Luttinen T; Summala H
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(10):e0185856. PubMed ID: 29040291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Bipedal vs. unipedal: a comparison between one-foot and two-foot driving in a driving simulator.
    Wang DD; Richard FD; Cino CR; Blount T; Schmuller J
    Ergonomics; 2017 Apr; 60(4):553-562. PubMed ID: 27210894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effects of major-road vehicle speed and driver age and gender on left-turn gap acceptance.
    Yan X; Radwan E; Guo D
    Accid Anal Prev; 2007 Jul; 39(4):843-52. PubMed ID: 17239808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Time headway in car following and operational performance during unexpected braking.
    van Winsum W; Brouwer W
    Percept Mot Skills; 1997 Jun; 84(3 Pt 2):1247-57. PubMed ID: 9229443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Texting while driving: is speech-based text entry less risky than handheld text entry?
    He J; Chaparro A; Nguyen B; Burge RJ; Crandall J; Chaparro B; Ni R; Cao S
    Accid Anal Prev; 2014 Nov; 72():287-95. PubMed ID: 25089769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Impact of headway distance and car speed on drivers' decisions to answer an incoming call.
    Pouyakian M; Mahabadi HA; Yazdi SM; Hajizadeh E; Nahvi A
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2013; 14(7):749-55. PubMed ID: 23944976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Driving performance and driver discomfort in an elevated and standard driving position during a driving simulation.
    Smith J; Mansfield N; Gyi D; Pagett M; Bateman B
    Appl Ergon; 2015 Jul; 49():25-33. PubMed ID: 25766419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Speed choice and driving performance in simulated foggy conditions.
    Brooks JO; Crisler MC; Klein N; Goodenough R; Beeco RW; Guirl C; Tyler PJ; Hilpert A; Miller Y; Grygier J; Burroughs B; Martin A; Ray R; Palmer C; Beck C
    Accid Anal Prev; 2011 May; 43(3):698-705. PubMed ID: 21376857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A parametric duration model of the reaction times of drivers distracted by mobile phone conversations.
    Haque MM; Washington S
    Accid Anal Prev; 2014 Jan; 62():42-53. PubMed ID: 24129320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Verbal and cognitive distractors in driving performance while using hands-free phones.
    Lin CJ; Chen HJ
    Percept Mot Skills; 2006 Dec; 103(3):803-10. PubMed ID: 17326507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The effect of concurrent bandwidth feedback on learning the lane-keeping task in a driving simulator.
    de Groot S; de Winter JC; López García JM; Mulder M; Wieringa PA
    Hum Factors; 2011 Feb; 53(1):50-62. PubMed ID: 21469533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Gap acceptance and risk-taking by young and mature drivers, both sober and alcohol-intoxicated, in a simulated driving task.
    Leung S; Starmer G
    Accid Anal Prev; 2005 Nov; 37(6):1056-65. PubMed ID: 16036208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The influence of curbs on driver behaviors in four-lane rural highways--A driving simulator based study.
    Yang Q; Overton R; Han LD; Yan X; Richards SH
    Accid Anal Prev; 2013 Jan; 50():1289-97. PubMed ID: 23084096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Supporting driver headway choice: the effects of discrete headway feedback when following headway instructions.
    Risto M; Martens MH
    Appl Ergon; 2014 Jul; 45(4):1167-73. PubMed ID: 24650618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison between younger and older drivers of the effect of obstacle direction on the minimum obstacle distance to brake and avoid a motor vehicle accident.
    Martin PL; Audet T; Corriveau H; Hamel M; D'Amours M; Smeesters C
    Accid Anal Prev; 2010 Jul; 42(4):1144-50. PubMed ID: 20441824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Assessment of driving-related performance in chronic whiplash using an advanced driving simulator.
    Takasaki H; Treleaven J; Johnston V; Rakotonirainy A; Haines A; Jull G
    Accid Anal Prev; 2013 Nov; 60():5-14. PubMed ID: 24001945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.