Modeling the Real World Using STISIM Drive® Simulation Software: A Study Contrasting High and Low Locality Simulations

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 597)


This paper presents work undertaken to develop a high locality simulation of a real world driving environment within the STISIM Drive® v3 software. The paper considers the tools and techniques used to develop the simulation model and then examines the impact that the addition of realistic models has on driver performance metrics. In order to test the developed simulation model, participants drove both a high and low locality version of the same route in a driving simulator as well as the real world route. Drivers’ levels of immersion, perception of presence, performance metrics and subjective workload ratings were considered. Results from an initial pilot study suggest that individual differences play a role in participants’ levels of presence between simulations. Results are discussed in terms of potential future research.


Human factors Simulation Tool development STISIM 



This work was partially supported by supported by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) grant EP/N022262/1 “Green Adaptive Control for Interconnected Vehicles”, EPSRC grant EP/G036896/1 and industrial sponsor Jaguar Land Rover, under the Industry Doctoral Training Centre in Transport and the Environment. The researchers would like to thank Karen Ghali for assistance in accessing the university instrumented vehicle. The researchers also extend their thanks participants who donated their time to be part of the study.


  1. 1.
    Young, M.S., Stanton, N.A.: What’s skill got to do with it? Vehicle automation and driver mental workload. Ergonomics 50(8), 1324–1339 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee, J.D., Caven, B., Haake, S., Brown, T.L.: Speech-based interaction with in-vehicle computers: the effect of speech-based e-mail on drivers’ attention to the roadway. Hum. Factors 43(4), 631–640 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McIlroy, R.C., Stanton, N.A., Godwin, L., Wood, A.P.: Encouraging eco-driving with visual, auditory and vibrotactile stimuli. IEEE Trans. Hum. Mach. Syst. (2017, in press) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shechtman, O., Classen, S., Awadzi, K., Mann, W.: Comparison of driving errors between on-the-road and simulated driving assessment: a validation study. Traffic Inj. Prev. 10(4), 379–385 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mets, M.A., Kuipers, E., Senerpont Domis, L.M., Leenders, M., Olivier, B., Verster, J.C.: Effects of alcohol on highway driving in the STISIM driving simulator. Hum. Psychopharmacol. Clin. Exp. 26(6), 434–439 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ranney, T.A., Baldwin, G.H., Vasko, S.M., Mazzae, E.N.: Measuring distraction potential of operating in-vehicle devices (No. HS-811 231) (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yoo, I., Kim, E.J., Lee, J.H.: Effects of chewing gum on driving performance as evaluated by the STISIM driving simulator. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 27(6), 1823–1825 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shelton, A.L., McNamara, T.P.: Systems of spatial reference in human memory. Cogn. Psychol. 43, 274–310 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Siegel, A.W., White, S.H.: The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. In: Reese, H.W. (ed.) Advances in Child Development and Behaviour, vol. 10, pp. 9–55. Academic Press, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J.: Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 7(3), 225–240 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J.: Measuring Immersion in Virtual Environments (ARI Technical Report 1014). U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioural and Social Sciences, Alexandria (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Banks, V.A., Stanton, N.A., Harvey, C.: 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 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and the EnvironmentUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations