Estimated marginal means of detection distance in metres as a function of vehicle type and prevalence. Note that detection distance represents the inverse of response time, so larger values indicate better performance (faster target detection). Error bars indicate ±1 standard error. 

Context in source publication

Context 1

... were detected farther away than motorcycles. There was also a significant interaction between vehicle type x detection drive, F(1, 36) = 312.044, p < .0005, ηp 2 = .897, indicating a significant effect of prevalence in the detection drive. As shown in Figure 2, both buses and motorcycles were detected significantly farther away when they were high prevalence in the detection drive. Exposure drive did not significantly interact with any variables (F < 1.2, p > .29, for all comparisons) indicating no significant effects resulting from vehicle prevalence in the exposure drive. High Prevalence Low Prevalence question (i.e., they were reporting the proportion of vehicles in the experiment that were buses or motorcycles, rather than the proportion of each target type that they successfully detected). However, the pattern of results remained the same regardless of whether these two participants were excluded. As with perceived difficulty, perceived accuracy showed no statistically significant main effects of exposure drive, F ( Driver behaviour questionnaire (DBQ). The observed differences in subjective measures cannot be explained by any pre-existing differences in search abilities, driving behaviours or response biases between groups. Mixed within-between ANOVA on the three DBQ subscales (Errors, Lapses, Violations) indicated no statistically significant effects of exposure drive, F(1, 34) = 3.127, p = .086, or detection drive, F(1, 34) = 0.045, p = .834, and no significant interaction between exposure and detection drives, F(1, 34) = 0.102, p = ...