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 *

260 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27658227)

  • 41. Driver trust in five driver assistance technologies following real-world use in four production vehicles.
    Kidd DG; Cicchino JB; Reagan IJ; Kerfoot LB
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2017 May; 18(sup1):S44-S50. PubMed ID: 28339302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. The effect of varying levels of vehicle automation on drivers' lane changing behaviour.
    Madigan R; Louw T; Merat N
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(2):e0192190. PubMed ID: 29466402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. How to warn drivers in various safety-critical situations - Different strategies, different reactions.
    Winkler S; Kazazi J; Vollrath M
    Accid Anal Prev; 2018 Aug; 117():410-426. PubMed ID: 29703596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Coming back into the loop: Drivers' perceptual-motor performance in critical events after automated driving.
    Louw T; Markkula G; Boer E; Madigan R; Carsten O; Merat N
    Accid Anal Prev; 2017 Nov; 108():9-18. PubMed ID: 28837837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Driving context influences drivers' decision to engage in visual-manual phone tasks: Evidence from a naturalistic driving study.
    Tivesten E; Dozza M
    J Safety Res; 2015 Jun; 53():87-96. PubMed ID: 25934001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Driver's adaptive glance behavior to in-vehicle information systems.
    Peng Y; Boyle LN
    Accid Anal Prev; 2015 Dec; 85():93-101. PubMed ID: 26406538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. 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]  

  • 48. Simulator training with a forward collision warning system: effects on driver-system interactions and driver trust.
    Koustanaï A; Cavallo V; Delhomme P; Mas A
    Hum Factors; 2012 Oct; 54(5):709-21. PubMed ID: 23156617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Effects of scheduled manual driving on drowsiness and response to take over request: A simulator study towards understanding drivers in automated driving.
    Wu Y; Kihara K; Takeda Y; Sato T; Akamatsu M; Kitazaki S
    Accid Anal Prev; 2019 Mar; 124():202-209. PubMed ID: 30665055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. The effects of momentary visual disruption on hazard anticipation and awareness in driving.
    Borowsky A; Horrey WJ; Liang Y; Garabet A; Simmons L; Fisher DL
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2015; 16(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 24697569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. How Do Drivers Respond to Silent Automation Failures? Driving Simulator Study and Comparison of Computational Driver Braking Models.
    Bianchi Piccinini G; Lehtonen E; Forcolin F; Engström J; Albers D; Markkula G; Lodin J; Sandin J
    Hum Factors; 2020 Nov; 62(7):1212-1229. PubMed ID: 31590570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Forward collision warning based on a driver model to increase drivers' acceptance.
    Puente Guillen P; Gohl I
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2019; 20(sup1):S21-S26. PubMed ID: 31381428
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Cross-modal warnings for orienting attention in older drivers with and without attention impairments.
    Lees MN; Cosman J; Lee JD; Vecera SP; Dawson JD; Rizzo M
    Appl Ergon; 2012 Jul; 43(4):768-76. PubMed ID: 22204895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Steering or braking avoidance response in SHRP2 rear-end crashes and near-crashes: A decision tree approach.
    Sarkar A; Hickman JS; McDonald AD; Huang W; Vogelpohl T; Markkula G
    Accid Anal Prev; 2021 May; 154():106055. PubMed ID: 33691227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Can vehicle longitudinal jerk be used to identify aggressive drivers? An examination using naturalistic driving data.
    Feng F; Bao S; Sayer JR; Flannagan C; Manser M; Wunderlich R
    Accid Anal Prev; 2017 Jul; 104():125-136. PubMed ID: 28499141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Distracted driver performance to multiple alerts in a multiple-conflict scenario.
    Fitch GM; Bowman DS; Llaneras RE
    Hum Factors; 2014 Dec; 56(8):1497-505. PubMed ID: 25509827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Automation Expectation Mismatch: Incorrect Prediction Despite Eyes on Threat and Hands on Wheel.
    Victor TW; Tivesten E; Gustavsson P; Johansson J; Sangberg F; Ljung Aust M
    Hum Factors; 2018 Dec; 60(8):1095-1116. PubMed ID: 30096002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Asleep at the automated wheel-Sleepiness and fatigue during highly automated driving.
    Vogelpohl T; Kühn M; Hummel T; Vollrath M
    Accid Anal Prev; 2019 May; 126():70-84. PubMed ID: 29571975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Effects of collision warning characteristics on driving behaviors and safety in connected vehicle environments.
    Zhao W; Gong S; Zhao D; Liu F; Sze NN; Huang H
    Accid Anal Prev; 2023 Jun; 186():107053. PubMed ID: 37030178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Validation of Essential Acoustic Parameters for Highly Urgent In-Vehicle Collision Warnings.
    Lewis BA; Eisert JL; Baldwin CL
    Hum Factors; 2018 Mar; 60(2):248-261. PubMed ID: 29131661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.