Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From interfaces to infrastructure: extending ecological interface design to re-design rail level crossings

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Collisions between trains and road vehicles at rail level crossings remain an intractable transport safety issue. This paper describes the application of Rasmussen’s ecological interface design (EID) principles to the development of a novel ‘passive’ rail level crossing prototype design and its evaluation using two driving simulator studies. Study 1 involved the design of the prototype EID crossing. Study 2 compared the EID crossing design with a standard ‘active’ rail level crossing with red flashing lights under normal conditions and Study 3 compared the crossings under conditions of driver distraction and technology failure. The findings show that under normal conditions, the EID crossing produced more cautious speed on approach than the standard design, but similar patterns of decision-making. Under conditions of distraction and failure, participants again demonstrated more cautious speed profiles on approach when encountering the EID design. Importantly, in technology failure conditions, the EID design appeared to encourage participants to engage in higher level problem-solving, which was not seen in response to the standard crossing. It is concluded that the EID crossing may be more able to support adaptive decision-making under conditions of failure or uncertainty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

(adapted from Salmon et al. 2016)

Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Banks VA, Stanton NA, Harvey C (2014) What the drivers do and do not tell you: using verbal protocol analysis to investigate driver behaviour in emergency situations. Ergonomics 57(3):332–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beanland V, Lenné MG, Salmon PM, Filtness AJ, Stanton NA (2017) To stop or not to stop: contrasting compliant and non-compliant driver behaviour at rural rail level crossings. Accid Anal Prev 108:209–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.09.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beanland V, Grant E, Read GJM, Stevens N, Thomas M, Lenné M, Stanton N, Salmon PM (2018) Challenging conventional rural rail level crossing design: evaluating three new systems thinking-based designs in a driving simulator. Safety Science 110(Part B):100–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borst C, Bijsterbosch VA, van Paassen MM, Mulder M (2017) Ecological interface design: supporting fault diagnosis of automated advice in a supervisory air traffic control task. Cogn Technol Work 19(4):545–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns CM, Hajdukiewicz JR (2004) Ecological interface design. CRC, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burns CM, Bryant DJ, Chalmers BA (2005) Boundary, purpose, and values in work domain models: models of naval command and control. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 35:603–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Railway Agency (ERA) (2017) Railway Safety in the European Union: Safety overview 2017. Luxemborg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Pages/Railway-Safety-Report-2017.aspx. Accessed 2 May 2018

  • Gibson JJ, Crooks LE (1938) A theoretical field-analysis of automobile-driving. Am J Psychol 51(3):453–471. https://doi.org/10.2307/1416145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenné MG, Beanland V, Salmon PM, Filtness AJ, Stanton NA (2013) Checking for trains: an on-road study of what drivers actually do at level crossings. In: Dadashi N, Scott A, Wilson JR, Mills A (eds) Rail human factors: supporting reliability, safety and cost reduction. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 53–59

    Google Scholar 

  • McIlroy RC, Stanton NA (2015) Ecological interface design two decades on: whatever happened to the SRK taxonomy? IEEE Trans Hum Mach Syst 45(2):45–163. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2014.2369372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIlroy RC, Stanton NA, Godwin L, Wood AP (2017) Encouraging eco-driving with visual, auditory, and vibrotactile stimuli. IEEE Trans Hum Mach Syst 47(5):661–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morineau T, Beuzet E, Rachinel A, Tobin L (2009) Experimental evaluation of a tide prediction display based on the ecological interface design framework. Cogn Technol Work 11(2):119–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) (2018) Business Plan 2018-19. London: ORR. Accessed http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/27465/orr-business-plan-2018-19.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2018

  • Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator (2016) Policy: Railway Crossings. Adelaide: ONRSR. https://www.onrsr.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/17620/Policy-Railway-Crossings.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2018

  • Parnell KJ, Stanton NA, Plant KL (2018) Good intentions: drivers’ decisions to engage with technology on the road and in a driving simulator. Cogn Technol Work 20(4):597–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen J (1983) Skills, rules and knowledge—signals, signs and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 13:257–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen J (1986) Information processing and human–machine interaction: an approach to cognitive engineering. North-Holland, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen J, Pejtersen AM, Schmidt K (1990) Taxonomy for cognitive work analysis. Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde

    Google Scholar 

  • Read GJM, Beanland V, Lenné MG, Stanton NA, Salmon PM (2017) Integrating human factors methods and systems thinking for transport analysis and design. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Saccomanno FF, Park PYJ, Fu L (2007) Estimating countermeasure effects for reducing collisions at highway–railway grade crossings. Accid Anal Prev 39(2):406–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2006.08.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon PM, Beanland V, Filtness AJ, Lenné MG, Stanton N (2013a) Waiting for warning: driver situation awareness at rural rail level crossings. In: Anderson M (ed) Contemporary ergonomics and human factors 2013. Taylor & Francis, Cambridge, pp 403–410

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon PM, Read GJM, Stanton NA, Lenne MG (2013b) The crash at Kerang: investigating systemic and psychological factors leading to unintentional non-compliance at rail level crossings. Accid Anal Prev 50:1278–1288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon PM, Lenné MG, Walker GH, Stanton NA, Filtness A (2014) Using the Event Analysis of Systemic Teamwork (EAST) to explore conflicts between different road user groups when making right hand turns at urban intersections. Ergonomics 57(11):1628–1642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon PM, Lenné MG, Read GJM, Mulvihill CM, Cornelissen M, Walker GH, Young KL, Stevens N, Stanton NA (2016) More than meets the eye: Using cognitive work analysis to identify design requirements for future rail level crossing systems. Appl Ergon 53(Part B):312–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.06.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon PM, Goode N, Spiertz A, Thomas M, Grant E, Clacy A (2017) Is it really good to talk? Testing the impact of providing concurrent verbal protocols on driving performance. Ergonomics 60(6):770–779. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2016.1214752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson PM, Verhage AG, Fuld RB (1989) State- space and verbal protocol methods for studying the human operator in process control. Ergonomics 32(11):1343–1372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton NA, McIlroy RC (2012) Designing mission communication planning: the role of Rich Pictures and Cognitive Work Analysis. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 13(2):146–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton NA, Walker GH (2011) Exploring the psychological factors involved in the Ladbroke Grove rail accident. Accid Anal Prev 43(3):1117–1127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton NA, McIlroy RC, Harvey C, Blainey S, Hickford A, Preston JM, Ryan B (2013) Following the cognitive work analysis train of thought: exploring the constraints of modal shift to rail transport. Ergonomics 56(3):522–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vicente KJ (1999) Cognitive work analysis: toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vicente KJ (2002) Ecological interface design: process and challenges. Hum Factors 44(1):62–78

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Vicente KJ, Rasmussen J (1992) Ecological interface design: theoretical foundations. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 22(4):589–606. https://doi.org/10.1109/21.156574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker GH (2005) Verbal protocol analysis. In: Stanton NA, Hedge A, Brookhuis K, Salas E, Hendrick H (eds) Handbook of human factors methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 30.1–30.9

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker GH, Stanton NA, Salmon PM (2011) Cognitive compatibility of motorcyclists and car drivers. Accid Anal Prev 43(3):878–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wullems C (2011) Towards the adoption of low-cost rail level crossing warning devices in regional areas of Australia: a review of current technologies and reliability issues. Saf Sci 49(8):1059–1073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young MS, Birrell SA (2012) Ecological IVIS design: using EID to develop a novel in-vehicle information system. Theor Issues Ergonom Sci 13(2):225–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2010.505270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young KL, Salmon PM, Cornelissen M (2013) Distraction-induced driving error: an on-road examination of the errors made by distracted and undistracted drivers. Accid Anal Prev 58:218–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was funded through an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Grant (LP100200387) provided to the University of Sunshine Coast, Monash University, and the University of Southampton, in partnership with the following organisations: the Victorian Rail Track Corporation (VicTrack), Transport Safety Victoria, Public Transport Victoria, Transport Accident Commission, Roads Corporation (VicRoads), and V/Line Passenger Pty Ltd. Gemma Read’s contribution to this research was supported by her ARC Discovery Early Career Researcher Award DE180101449, Vanessa Beanland’s contribution to this research was supported by her ARC Discovery Early Career Researcher Award DE150100083, and Paul Salmon’s contribution was supported by his ARC Future Fellowship FT140100681. We thank Allison Kearns for her assistance with data processing and the two anonymous reviewers whose comments have assisted us to improve the paper. Portions of this research were presented at the 12th International Symposium on Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management in Banff, Canada and the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2017 International Annual Meeting in Austin, Texas.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Human Factors and Sociotechnical Systems, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, QLD, Australia

    Gemma J. M. Read, Vanessa Beanland, Eryn Grant, Nicholas Stevens, Miles Thomas & Paul M. Salmon

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

    Vanessa Beanland

  3. Transportation Research Group, Civil, Maritime, Environmental Engineering and Science Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

    Neville A. Stanton

  4. Monash University Accident Research Centre, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

    Michael G. Lenné & Christine M. Mulvihill

  5. Institute for Infrastructure and Environment, School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society, Heriot‐Watt University, Edinburgh, UK

    Guy H. Walker

Authors
  1. Gemma J. M. Read
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vanessa Beanland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neville A. Stanton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eryn Grant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nicholas Stevens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael G. Lenné
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Miles Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Christine M. Mulvihill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Guy H. Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Paul M. Salmon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gemma J. M. Read.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Read, G.J.M., Beanland, V., Stanton, N.A. et al. From interfaces to infrastructure: extending ecological interface design to re-design rail level crossings. Cogn Tech Work 23, 3–21 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00583-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00583-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation