This content is not included in
your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Observed Errors in Distance Estimation
Technical Paper
2010-01-0046
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Annotation ability available
Sector:
Language:
English
Abstract
In order to evaluate the variation in distance estimation accuracy, a survey was conducted during which 123 subjects estimated distances to static objects in a roadway setting. The subjects (which included many police officers) tended to underestimate distances to objects that were from 21 to 383 feet away; the average estimation error was −8.6% while the median error was − 22%. The variation in performance among individuals was extremely large, with extreme errors ranging from − 96% to + 811%. The distribution of error did not conform to a Gaussian (normal) distribution because of the skew of the observed error distribution towards large positive errors. Box plots were used to identify nine “outlier” respondents who produced a total of 15 error estimates which were extraordinary in their difference from the rest of the data. Tests for independence indicated that the likelihood of an error estimate being an outlier was not influenced by gender, age, or whether the subject was a police officer. When males were compared to females, both were found to have median estimation errors that were negative, corresponding to under-estimation. When nonparametric statistical methods were used to compare the median distance estimation errors, females' under-estimation errors were found to be larger (more negative) in a statistically significant way. In this survey, in general, the most accurate estimates were given by older males at short distances.
When asked to estimate the length of an average car, there were seven outliers. There was no statistically significant relationship between the likelihood of being an outlier and the subjects' gender, age, or whether they were a police officer. The median under-estimation errors for car length exhibited by females and younger respondents were larger, and were statistically significant.
Recommended Content
Citation
Strauss, M. and Carnahan, J., "Observed Errors in Distance Estimation," SAE Technical Paper 2010-01-0046, 2010, https://doi.org/10.4271/2010-01-0046.Also In
References
- Andre J Rogers, S 2006 Using Verbal and Blind-walking Estimates to Investigate the Two Visual Systems Hypothesis Perception and Psychophysics 68 3 353 361
- Gibson, J. J. The Perception of the Visual World Houghton Mifflin Boston 1950
- Higashiyama, A. Adachi, K. 2006 Perceived Size and Perceived Distance of Targets Viewed from Between the Legs: Evidence for Proprioceptive Theory Vision Research 46 3961 3976
- Johnson, R. Probability and Statistics for Engineers 7th Pearson Prentice Hall New Jersey 2005
- Lappin, J.S. Shelton, A.L. Rieser, J.J. 2006 Environmental Context Influences Visually Perceived Distance Perception & Psychophysics 68 571 581
- MINITAB Statistical Software User's Guide www.minitab.com
- Montgomery, D.C. Runger, G. C. Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers 2nd John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York 1999
- Sharrack, B. Hughes, R.A.C. 1997 Reliability of Distance Estimation by Doctors and Patients: Cross Sectional Study British Medical Journal 315 1652 1654
- Sinai, M.J. Ooi, T.L. He Z.J. 1998 Terrain Influences the Accurate Judgment of Distance Nature 395 497 500
- Strauss M. Carnahan, J. 2009 Distance Estimation Error in a Roadway Setting The Police Journal