Applied Ergonomics 44 (2013) 435e444

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Ergonomics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo

Simulation-based driver and vehicle crew training: Applications, efficacy and

future directions
Natassia Goode*, Paul M. Salmon 1, Michael G. Lenné 2
Monash University Accident Research Centre, Monash Injury Research Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Accident Research Centre, Building 70, Monash University,
Victoria 3800, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Simulation is widely used as a training tool in many domains, and more recently the use of vehicle
Received 21 December 2011 simulation as a tool for driver and vehicle crew training has become popular (de Winter et al., 2009;
Accepted 9 October 2012 Pradhan et al., 2009). This paper presents an overview of how vehicle simulations are currently used to
train driving-related procedural and higher-order cognitive skills, and team-based procedural and non-
Keywords: technical teamwork skills for vehicle crews, and evaluates whether there is evidence these training
Simulation
programs are effective. Efficacy was evaluated in terms of whether training achieves learning objectives
Vehicle
and whether the attainment of those objectives enhances real world performance on target tasks. It was
Training
concluded that while some higher-order cognitive skills training programs have been shown to be
effective, in general the adoption of simulation technology has far outstripped the pace of empirical
research in this area. The paper concludes with a discussion of the issues that require consideration when
developing and evaluating vehicle simulations for training purposes e based not only on what is known
from the vehicle domain, but what can be inferred from other domains in which simulation is an
established training approach, such as aviation (e.g. Jentsch et al., 2011) and medicine (e.g.
McGaghie et al., 2010).
Statement of relevance: Simulation has become a popular tool for driver and vehicle crew training in
civilian and military settings. This review considers whether there is evidence that this training method
leads to learning and the transfer of skills to real world performance. Evidence from other domains, such
as aviation and medicine, is drawn upon to inform the design and evaluation of future vehicle simulation
training systems.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Simulations of civilian vehicles (Pollatsek et al., 2011),
commercial trucks (Blanco et al., 2011) and armoured vehicles and
tanks (Oskarsson et al., 2010) are popular tools for driver and
vehicle crew training. Proponents of this approach argue that
simulations have several advantages over training with a real
vehicle in the field. The advantages are: a) control over training
conditions (de Winter et al., 2009; Neukum et al., 2003; Pinto et al.,
2008), b) the capacity to train in accident-prone scenarios that are
too dangerous to train on-road (Espie et al., 2005; Ivancic and
Hesketh, 2000; Kaptein et al., 1996; Reed and Green, 1999), c)
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 3 9905 4684; fax: þ61 3 9905 4363.
E-mail addresses: natassia.goode@monash.edu (N. Goode), paul.salmon@
monash.edu (P.M. Salmon), michael.lenne@monash.edu (M.G. Lenné).
1
Tel.: þ61 3 9905 1907; fax: þ61 3 9905 4363.
2
Tel.: þ61 3 9905 1389; fax: þ61 3 9905 4363.
cost and resource savings (Espie et al., 2005; Kappé and Emmerik,
2005; Pinto et al., 2008), d) reduced time needed to expose learners
to a wide-variety of situations (Espie et al., 2005; Kappé et al., 2003;
Kaptein et al., 1996) and e) it is possible to objectively measure
driving performance (de Winter et al., 2007b, 2009; Kaptein et al.,
1996; Neukum et al., 2003).
These claims are often accompanied by an unsupported
assumption that simulation-based vehicle training is effective: that
it achieves learning objectives and the attainment of those objec-
tives enhances real world performance on target tasks (Rolfe and
Caro, 1982). The purpose of this review is to determine whether
there is evidence to support this assumption. First, a framework is
introduced to describe the key features of simulation training
programs. Second, using this framework, current simulation-based
driving and vehicle crew training programs are described. Third,
the evidence that these training programs are effective is reviewed.
Finally, based on these results, and drawing on evidence from the
aviation and medical domains to close the gaps in current

0003-6870/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2012.10.007
436 N. Goode et al. / Applied Ergonomics 44 (2013) 435e444
knowledge, guidelines for future vehicle simulation training system
design and evaluation are presented.
2. Vehicle simulation training programs: description
The first vehicle simulations (or automobile simulators as they
were then known) were developed in the early 1960s, and con-
sisted of analogue computers, electronic circuits and primitive
display technologies (Allen et al., 2011). Today, the term “vehicle
simulation” encompasses a wide range of devices that artificially
attempt to represent the real vehicle and the driving environment
(de Winter et al., 2007a; Lammers, 2007; Moroney and Lilienthal,
2008). A distinction is often made between “low”, “mid” and
“high” fidelity simulations (e.g. de Winter et al., 2009; Kaptein et al.,
1996; Pollock et al., 1999; Weir and Clark, 1995). According to
Kaptein et al. (1996), low fidelity simulations have a single Personal
Computer (PC) monitor, simplified vehicle controls (e.g. mouse,
keyboard) and a fixed base (i.e. they do not simulate motion). Mid
fidelity simulations typically consist of a large projection screen,
a realistic cab and vehicle controls, and a simple motion base. High
fidelity simulations typically provide close to a 360 field of view,
a realistic cab and vehicle controls, and simulate realistic motion.
However, characterising the fidelity of simulations is much
more complex than these categorisations imply. Hays and Singer
(1989) make the distinction between physical fidelity, the extent
to which the simulation looks like the real world, and functional
fidelity, the extent to which the simulation operates like the real
world. The fidelity matrix presented in Table 1 demonstrates how
vehicle training programs can be high on one dimension of fidelity
and low on another. Additionally, other dimensions of fidelity have
been proposed, including visual fidelity, motion fidelity, cognitive
fidelity, objective fidelity, perceptual fidelity, task fidelity, behav-
ioural fidelity, psychological fidelity, attribute fidelity and concrete
fidelity (de Winter et al., 2007a).
Another problem is that it is often difficult to assign individual
simulations to a particular category. Physical fidelity is determined
by multiple characteristics, including the visual system (i.e. hori-
zontal field of view, perceived resolution, delay between the
drivers’ actions and system response), motion characteristics
(i.e. the range of motion, signal bandwidth and the roughness of the
ride), the degree of feedback from the vehicle controls
(Greenberg and Blommer, 2011) and the realism of the vehicle
controls and cabin. Some simulations may be high fidelity on one
characteristic and low on another.
One solution to this problem is to avoid overall categorisations of
fidelity in favour of descriptions of simulation capabilities. For
example, Brock et al. (2001) present a taxonomy of operational
capabilities for comparing vehicle simulations. However, the
taxonomy appears dated when applied to current technology. For
Table 1
Fidelity matrix (adapted from Salmon et al., 2012).
Physical fidelity
High Moderate Low
Functional High Actual vehicle in High-end High-end
fidelity real conditions vehicle desktop PC
simulation simulation/virtual
reality
Moderate Actual vehicle on Low-end Low-end desktop
driving range vehicle PC simulation
with representative simulation
conditions
Low Static vehicle Arcade Written materials,
vehicle multimedia classroom
simulation instruction
example, it includes elements such as “model terrain board” and
“virtual driving world encompassing 50 square miles”, while omit-
ting elements such as the degree of feedback from the vehicle
controls. The approach adopted in the current review is to describe
the capabilities of vehicle simulations in terms of the vehicle
controls, the field of view of the visual display, and the realism of the
motion and feedback. These capabilities were selected on the
premise that they are key to performing most driving tasks.
In addition, training simulations consist of two other elements:
the scenarios and the instructional overlay. The scenarios are the
events used to train the target skill (Kearney and Grechkin, 2011).
The instructional overlay is the training in which the simulation is
embedded, including the number of scenarios, type of feedback and
methods used to assess performance. In the following section, this
framework is used to describe simulation-based driver and vehicle
crew training programs.
3. Vehicle simulation: applications
Although the first vehicle simulations were developed to study
driver behaviour almost 50 years ago, it has only been in the last
decade that they have been used for driver training (Blanco et al.,
2011). Their use has spread rapidly as the technology has become
cheaper and more widely available. Currently, in the Netherlands
alone, over a hundred simulations are dedicated to novice driver
training (Kappé and Emmerik, 2005; Kappler, 2008; Pollatsek et al.,
2011). Simulations are used extensively to train military truck and
armoured vehicle drivers (Oskarsson et al., 2010) and commercial
truck and bus drivers (Blanco et al., 2011; Reed and Parkes, 2005).
Vehicle simulation for driving rehabilitation and re-training of
older drivers are emerging applications (Carlozzi et al., 2012; Singh
et al., 2011; Wachtel et al., 2005).
Broadly, there are two types of skills that are addressed in
simulation driver training: procedural skills and higher-order
cognitive skills. Procedural skills require the execution of
sequences of actions, which in some cases may become automa-
tised with practice (the terms procedural skills, psychomotor skills
and technical skills are often used interchangeably in the literature;
Kovacs, 1997). Higher-order cognitive skills require the individual to
monitor the overall state of the environment, consider future
actions, make strategic decisions, maintain awareness of the overall
situation and assess the riskiness of the current operation
(also referred to as non-technical skills; Pollatsek et al., 2011).
For drivers, vehicle control is the critical procedural skill to
master. This is the primary target of novice driver training programs
such as TRAINER (Nalmpantis et al., 2005) and the Driver Assess-
ment and Training System (DATS; Allen et al., 2007), and driver
rehabilitation programs designed for neurologically-impaired
patients (e.g. Akinwuntan et al., 2005; Cox et al., 2010). In these
programs, the scenarios are modelled on real life situations, such as
negotiating a curve and following another vehicle. Concurrent
feedback is typically given throughout training. A range of fixed-
based simulations are used to deliver training, from single monitor
displays with game-like controls, three-monitor displays with
realistic controls, and full-scale vehicle mock-ups with a naturalistic
field of view. Similar scenarios and instructional overlays are used to
train vehicle control and traffic negotiation in commercial motor
vehicle license programs throughout the United States. Although in
these programs the simulations attempt to reproduce the exact
motion and field of view of real trucks (Morgan et al., 2011).
Other commercial vehicle driver training focuses on more
advanced procedural skills such as reverse parking and gear shift-
ing procedures (e.g. Reed and Parkes, 2005; Strayer and Drews,
2003; Uhr et al., 2003). The scenarios focus on repeating the
required actions in realistic traffic situations. Unfortunately, the
 N. Goode et al. / Applied Ergonomics 44 (2013) 435e444
type of feedback given is not specified in the available literature. A
range of simulations are used to deliver training, from exact replicas
of real trucks which attempt to reproduce the exact motion and
field of view (Reed and Parkes, 2005; Uhr et al., 2003) to fixed-
base simulations with realistic controls and a single monitor
(Strayer and Drews, 2003).
In higher-order cognitive skills training for drivers, the skill that
is most commonly targeted is hazard perception, which is the ability
to detect, perceive and assess the degree of risk associated with
actual and emerging traffic hazards (Pollatsek et al., 2011). Examples
include DriveSmart (Regan et al., 1998), Driver Zero Errors Driving
(ZED) (Fisher et al., 2002), Risk Awareness and Perception Training
(RAPT; Pradhan et al., 2009) and SIMRAPT (Diete, 2008).
DriveSmart, Driver ZED and RAPT do not require any equipment
other than the simulation software and a standard PC. SIMRAPT is
delivered in a full-scale vehicle mock-up with a head mounted
device that displays the scenarios. The scenarios consist of a series
of video clips, which show traffic scenarios from the driver’s
perspective (DriveSmart, Driver ZED, RAPT-3, SIMRAPT) or a top
down view (RAPT-1, RAPT-2). The trainee must indicate in each
scenario areas that need to be continuously monitored for hazards.
Responses are followed by individualised feedback.
A second module of DriveSmart focuses on the development of
attentional control skills, which is the ability to prioritise attention
between competing in-vehicle tasks. Again, training does not
require any equipment other than the simulation software and a
standard PC. A dual task paradigm is used to teach novice drivers to
allocate their attention between a virtual roadway and a secondary
task in a series of scenarios. Individualised feedback is given at the
end of each scenario (Regan et al., 2000).
More recently, simulation has been used to train teamwork skills
in emergency response teams (Neukum et al., 2003), formula one
racing teams (Espie et al., 2005) and land warfare vehicle crews
(Oskarsson et al., 2010). Two types of skills are targeted: team-
based procedural skills and non-technical teamwork skills. Team-
based procedural skills require teams to co-operate to execute
a sequence of actions to achieve a specific goal. Non-technical
teamwork skills are a broad set of skills that are relevant to team
effectiveness, such as decision making, assertiveness, mission
analysis (planning), communication, leadership, adaptabilitye
flexibility and situational awareness, which are most commonly
discussed in the context of crew resource management training
(CRM, e.g. Brannick et al., 2005).
The Swedish Land Warfare Centre currently uses a tank and
combat vehicle simulator to train a combination of team-based
procedural and non-technical skills. The tank simulation consists
of a replica of a tank interior with a naturalistic field of view, while
the combat vehicle consists of three networked PC workstations
equipped with game-like vehicle controls. Neither device simulates
motion. The tank crew has a driver, gunner, commander and loader,
while the combat vehicle has a driver, gunner and commander.
Trainees can drive, shoot and interact with the environment as they
would in the real vehicle, while collaborating on tasks. Unfortu-
nately, no details are available concerning the scenarios or
instructional overlay (Oskarsson et al., 2010).
4. Vehicle simulation: efficacy
This section evaluates the evidence that simulation is an effective
tool for training driving-related procedural and higher-order
cognitive skills, team-based procedural and non-technical skills.
Efficacy was evaluated from two perspectives. First, is there
evidence that trainees learn the target skills whilst performing
target tasks in the simulation? Second, do these skills transfer to real
life situations and improve performance in the actual vehicle?
437
4.1. Procedural skills
Two procedural skills have received particular attention in the
training evaluation literature: vehicle control skills and the gear
shifting procedures required to maximize fuel efficiency. An over-
view is presented in Table 2, including a description of each study,
their findings with regard to learning, transfer, the effect of simu-
lation capabilities on these outcomes, and their main limitations.
Overall, findings suggest that vehicle control training has
a positive effect on performance in the training simulation.
Instructor ratings (Cox et al., 2010; Neukum et al., 2003) and
objective measures of performance in the simulation improve from
pre- to post-training (Akinwuntan et al., 2005; Allen et al., 2007,
2003; Falkmer and Gregersen, 2003; Morgan et al., 2011). These
studies involve a range of simulations: PC desktop with game-like
controls (Allen et al., 2003), fixed-based simulators with realistic
controls (Akinwuntan et al., 2005; Falkmer and Gregersen, 2003) to
highly realistic simulators which attempt to replicate realistic
motion (Morgan et al., 2011),
There is also encouraging evidence that simulation-based vehicle
control training transfers to real world driving under certain
conditions. Uhr et al. (2003) found that success at reverse parking
a real truck improved after training in a truck simulation. Similarly,
Morgan et al. (2011) found that participants trained with a combi-
nation of simulation and on-road training performed similarly in an
on-road test in a real truck to those trained entirely on-road. In
a study involving the rehabilitation of stroke patients, Akinwuntan
et al. (2005) found that patients who received simulation-based
driver training were more likely to pass an official pre-driving test
to legally resume driving than patients who received training on
driving-related cognitive tasks. These studies all utilise simulators
with realistic controls, cabin and field of view. The simulators
employed by Uhr et al. (2003) and Morgan et al. (2011) simulated
motion, while the one employed by Akinwuntan et al. (2005) did not.
Allen et al.’s (2007) findings suggests that training with desktop PCs
(single or triple monitors) with game-like controls may not be as
effective as training with an instrumented vehicle on a fixed base.
However, the study has a number of methodological limitations
which limit the validity of this conclusion: no statistical tests were
conducted to compare crash rates; non-random assignment to
training conditions; and no control condition.
With regard to training gear shifting procedures, there is
preliminary evidence to suggest that simulation may be an effective
tool for training. After fuel efficiency training in a replica of a real
truck, participants consume significantly less virtual “fuel” and
display more fuel efficient behaviours in the training simulation
(Reed and Parkes, 2005). These benefits are also evident on road
using only a fixed-based simulator; Strayer and Drews (2003) found
that training increased fuel efficiency in the real truck immediately
by 2.8%, and over a six-month period. However, the lack of control
group in both studies is a significant limitation.
4.2. Higher-order cognitive skills
Various studies have evaluated the effectiveness of simulation-
based hazard perception training programs. An overview is pre-
sented in Table 3, including a description of each study, their
findings with regard to learning, transfer and the effect of simula-
tion capabilities on these outcomes, and their main limitations.
Overall, findings show that compared to control groups, trained
participants are more likely to perceive and respond appropriately
to hazards in a driving simulation as assessed by driving instruc-
tors (Regan et al., 2000) and objective measures of driving
performance, including braking patterns, speed (Fisher et al.,
2002) and eye movement measures (Diete, 2008; Fisher et al.,
438 N. Goode et al. / Applied Ergonomics 44 (2013) 435e444

Table 2
Summary of evaluations of procedural skills driver training programs.

Source Participants/Conditions Simulation characteristics Simulation training Type of study/data Findings Limitations
content collection
Akinwuntan First ever subacute Instrumented vehicle with 15 h of training over Experimental. Objective Learning:
et al., 2005 stroke patients. a realistic field of view on 5 weeks. Naturalistic measures of performance Simulation
Simulation training a fixed motion base. driving scenarios. in the driving simulation. training group
(n ¼ 42) On-road driving improved their
Control group received test administered by simulated
driving-related cognitive driving instructors, blind driving
task training (e.g. map to training condition, performance.
reading) (n ¼ 41) administered pre-, Transfer: No
immediately difference in
after and 6 months on-road
after training. performance.
BUT significantly
more simulation
training participants
(73%) were allowed
to resume driving 6
months post stroke
compared to the
control group (42%).
Allen et al., 2003 High school driver Single monitor Six realistic driving Quasi-experimental. Learning: Performance No control
education students, simulation ¼ a desktop PC scenarios that were Objective measures of improved from the group.
learner drivers recruited with a single monitor and designed to teach driving performance in fifth to the sixth Non-
through the Department game-like controls basic the simulation they were scenario. random
of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Three-monitor simulation vehicle control skills trained on. Capabilities: Single allocation to
Single monitor simulation ¼ a desktop PC with three and the capacities to monitor simulation conditions.
(n ¼ 18), monitors and game-like deal with intersections training resulted in Learning only
Three-monitor simulation controls. and traffic control poorer improvements assessed on
(n ¼ 45) Highly realistic vehicle devices, than the other training
Highly realistic vehicle simulation ¼ real cab, and resolve traffic and simulations. simulation.
simulation (n ¼ 48) controls and naturalistic pedestrian conflicts.
field of view, fixed base.
Allen et al., 2007 As in Allen et al., 2003 As in Allen et al., 2003 As in Allen et al., 2003 Quasi-experimental. Learning: Performance As in Allen
Single monitor simulation Accident data for each improved from the fifth et al., 2003
(n ¼ 215), participant was obtained to the sixth scenario. No statistical
Three-monitor simulation two years later. Compared Transfer: Lower crash tests are
(n ¼ 180) to accident rates of rates only for highly reported.
Highly realistic vehicle traditionally realistic vehicle
simulation (n ¼ 159). trained novice drivers in simulation training.
California and Canada. Capabilities: Highly
realistic vehicle
simulation training
resulted in the lowest
crash rates (7%),
three-monitor
simulation training
resulted in only
marginally lower
crash rates (14%) than
those trained with
the single monitor
simulation (17%).
Cox et al., 2010 Military personnel Realistic controls, 180 4e6 simulated driving Experimental. Pre- and Learning: Control Small sample
recovering from mild field of view, rear and sessions. Naturalistic post-training group’s driving size.
to moderate traumatic side view images, fixed driving scenarios. assessments on the performance changed Learning only
brain injury. base. simulation, assessed by a little from pre- to assessed on
Simulation (n ¼ 6) researcher blind post-training, the training
Control (n ¼ 5) to condition. simulation group’s simulation.
performance improved
on all variables.
Falkmer and Learner drivers enrolled Mean cost simulation ¼ 31 realistic driving Experimental. Objective Learning: Simulation Simulation
Gregersen, 2003 in a driver education realistic controls, 120 scenarios of real life measures of driving training resulted in training
school. field of view, simple driving situations, such performance on 6 scenarios better performance groups also
Mean cost simulation motion base. as negotiating a curve in a highly realistic on half of scenarios received
(n ¼ 18), Low cost simulation ¼ and following another simulation (that was not tested. multimedia
Low cost simulation realistic controls, one vehicle on a country used for training). Capabilities: Better training on
(n ¼ 18), monitor, fixed base. road. performance for road rules.
Traditional driver participants trained
education with the mean cost
(n ¼ 18). simulation
 N. Goode et al. / Applied Ergonomics 44 (2013) 435e444 439

Table 2 (continued )

Source Participants/Conditions Simulation characteristics Simulation training Type of study/data Findings Limitations
content collection
Morgan Students at community Replica of a real truck Scenarios matched to Experimental. Videos of Learning: In
et al., 2011 colleges attending interior, realistic motion on-road training; driving performance the simulation
commercial motor and field of view. naturalistic traffic evaluated by a reviewer on-road tests,
vehicle training. scenarios targeted at independent of the both simulation
Simulation þ on-road vehicle control and research team and blind and on-road
training (n ¼ 32) traffic negotiation. to condition. Road test training better
On-road training scores based on than CDL
(n ¼ 33) performance in several training. In
Commercial Driver’s aspects of road driving. the range tests,
License (CDL) Range test scores based simulation
test-focussed on 6 manoeuvres. Both training better
training (n ¼ 33) road and range tested at than on-road
DMV, on-road, and in and CDL training.
the training simulator. Transfer: No sig,
difference between
DMV road or
range test scores.
On-road and range,
both simulation
and on-road
training better
than CDL training.
Neukum Police officers Instrumented vehicle Scenarios that target Experimental. Driving Learning: No control
et al., 2003 (n ¼ 12) with a naturalistic field emergency driving performance in the Performance group.
of view, sophisticated skills, simulation assessed by an improved on Subjective
platform such as negotiating instructor on nine each subscale. measures of
traffic subscales (e.g. overtaking, performance.
that in normal lane keeping, using Learning only
circumstances warning sounds) prior assessed on
would have right to, and post-training training
of way, and the simulation.
proper use of No statistical
irregular lanes and tests are
warning reported.
signals.
Reed and Commercial vehicle Replica of the real truck Naturalistic traffic Experimental. Learning: Drivers No control
Parkes, 2005 drivers with Category interior, realistic motion scenarios Repeated measures significantly group.
C/C þ E licenses and field of view. in which trainees through training increase their Does not
(n ¼ 56) repeat on the simulation fuel efficiency assess
the gear shifting of “virtual” fuel over the course transfer.
procedures consumed. of the training
required to simulation.
maximize fuel
efficiency.
Strayer and Drews, Experienced truck Realistic controls, a single Naturalistic traffic Experimental. Transfer: Increased No control
2003 drivers (n ¼ 40) monitor, fixed base. scenarios Pre- and post- fuel efficiency group.
in which trainees training immediately by
repeat the (immediately and 2.8%, maintained
gear shifting 6 months after) at six months
procedures assessments of fuel
required to consumption on
maximize fuel actual route driven
efficiency by driver.
Uhr et al., 2003 Experienced truck drivers Replica of the real truck Repeat parking Experimental. Pre- Transfer: Simulation
Simulation (n ¼ 25) interior, realistic motion manoeuvre 5 times. and post-training training was as
Training on real truck and field of view. parking assessments successful as
(n ¼ 25) on the real truck. training in the real
truck.

2002, 2007; Pollatsek et al., 2006; Pradhan et al., 2005). These
benefits generalise to scenarios not encountered during training
and are evident four weeks after training. In terms of transfer,
compared to controls, trained drivers exhibit superior visual
scanning ability and are more likely to fixate on areas containing
potential hazards during on-road driving (Pradhan et al., 2009).
While these results are encouraging, no published studies have
directly examined the link between simulation-based hazard
perception training and crash risk, so it unclear whether these
results persist overtime and lead to gains in on-road safety.
Moreover, as drivers receive training and assessment within
a single session, it is unclear whether their behaviour is due to
training or demand characteristics (Beanland et al., 2011).
The evaluation of simulation-based attentional control training
has received much less attention. Regan et al. (2000) found that
compared to a control group, DriveSmart trained participants were
significantly better at controlling the speed of a vehicle simulation
(not used in training) while they performed a verbal arithmetic
task, immediately and four weeks after training. The effect of
training was not evaluated on-road, so no conclusions can be drawn
with regard to transfer.
4.3. Vehicle crew training
Although simulation-based vehicle crew training has become
common practice in the military, evidence regarding efficacy was
Table 3
Summary of evaluations of higher-order cognitive skills driver training programs.

Source Participants/Conditions Simulation characteristics Simulation training Type of study Findings Limitations
content /data collection
Diete, Novice drivers. RAPT-1 training. Desktop RAPT-1 training as Experimental. Pre- Learning: Trained Small sample size.
2008 RAPT-2 þ SIMRAPT PC with a single monitor, per Pradhan et al., and post-test of drivers were Learning evaluated in
training (n ¼ 12) controlled with mouse. 2005. driving performance significantly more the simulation used to
No-training control Displays traffic from a SIMRAPT training in a vehicle simulation likely to gaze at deliver training.
(n ¼ 12) top down view. ¼ same scenarios (used in SIMRAPT areas that contained Transfer not evaluated.
SIMRAPT. Instrumented as RAPT-1 training training). Eye information about
vehicle, head mounted repeated. movement measures hazards than
device which displayed Appropriate used to determine untrained drivers.
360 field of view as feedback given whether participants
driver moves head. throughout training. fixed on areas
of potential risk.
Fisher et al., Driver ZED training Desktop PC with a single 80 video clips Experimental. Learning: Driver ZED Transfer to real driving
2002 (younger, monitor, controlled with of traffic scenarios, Objective trained group not assessed. Small
inexperienced mouse. Displays view participants must measures of outperformed sample size.
drivers, n ¼ 15) from front roadway, as respond in driving untrained younger,
No training (younger, well as side and rear prescribed ways performance, inexperienced drivers
inexperienced view mirrors. depending on the such as braking and similarly to
drivers, n ¼ 15) mode. Scan ¼ patterns and experienced drivers.
No training answer questions speed, on 6
(experienced about the traffic scenarios in a
drivers (n ¼ 15) environment. fixed base
Spot ¼ identify simulation
risky elements. (that was not
Act ¼ identify the used for training).
correct action.
Drive ¼ identify
the action needed
to avoid a crash.
Pradhan et al., Novice drivers. Desktop PC with a single 10 traffic scenarios Experimental. Pre- Learning: After Transfer to real driving
2005 RAPT-1 training monitor, controlled with which contain and post-test of training, RAPT trained not assessed. Small
(n ¼ 12) mouse. Displays traffic potential hazards. driving performance drivers were significantly sample size.
No-training control from a top down view. Participants must in a vehicle simulation more likely to fixate on
(n ¼ 12) identify areas that (not used in training). risk relevant areas than
must be monitored Eye movement measures the untrained drivers.
continuously or used to determine
may contain a whether participants
hazard hidden from fixed on areas of
view. potential risk.
Pradhan et al., Novice drivers. Desktop PC with a single 9 traffic scenarios Experimental. Eye Transfer: Trained drivers Small sample size.
2009 RAPT-3 training monitor, controlled with which contain movements were significantly more
(n ¼ 12) mouse. Displays traffic potential hazards. were used to determine likely to gaze at areas
No-training control from inside the vehicle. Participants must whether participants that contained information
(n ¼ 12) identify areas that fixated on areas of about hazards than
must be monitored potential risk as untrained driver.
continuously or they drove a
may contain a vehicle along a route.
hazard hidden
from view.
Regan et al., Learner drivers Desktop PC with a single Overall 5 h of Experimental. Pre- Learning: DriveSmart Subjective measures of
2000 DriveSmart training monitor, controlled with training. Trainee and post-training group outperformed performance.
(n ¼ 52) mouse. Displays view responses always (1 week and 4 weeks control group on tests Transfer to real driving
Control flight sim from front roadway, as followed by after) driving of attentional control not assessed.
(n ¼ 51) well as side and rear appropriate performance and hazard perception
view mirrors. feedback. measured in a driving 1 week after and
Hazard perception: simulation not used in 4 weeks after training.
video clips of traffic training. Performance
scenarios, assessed by a researcher.
participants
must answer
questions about the
traffic environment,
intervening if
driving becomes
unsafe, identify
risks in the
environment and
predict what will
happen next.
Attentional control:
control the
following distance
of the car while
performing a
concurrent
visual attention task
 N. Goode et al. / Applied Ergonomics 44 (2013) 435e444
not identified within the published literature. The few published
evaluations focus on the acceptability of training (e.g. Oskarsson
et al., 2010). Although findings generally show that the training
gained acceptance, gathering subjective data from trainees is
problematic since they cannot know how much they learnt or if
they will be able to transfer the training to the real world.
As simulations simply provide an environment in which the
interpersonal skills relevant to teamwork can be practiced, insights
may be drawn from other domains on the possible effectiveness of
simulation-based team training. CRM training for military and
commercial flight crews became mandatory in the 1990s, and this
training is typically delivered using flight simulations (Salas et al.,
2006). Similarly, simulation is now extensively integrated into
medical team training (Shapiro et al., 2008).
Despite this, there is limited evidence that simulation-based
CRM training enhances teamwork in the cockpit. Brannick et al.
(2005) found that compared to an untrained control group, teams
trained with a PC-based flight simulation were rated higher on CRM
in a highly realistic flight simulation. The three major limitations of
this research are that it is not known whether crews will be able to
apply these skills when they are under the intense pressures of the
real aircraft, how long these effects will last and whether training
improves aircraft safety.
In comparison, the evaluation of simulation-based medical team
training has received more attention. Weaver et al. (2010) identified
27 peer-reviewed studies, which showed that training improved
learning, transfer and safety-related outcomes. For example,
Shapiro et al. (2004) found that compared to a no-training control
group, trained emergency medical teams had better teamwork
during 8-h shifts in a real Emergency Department. In another
study, trained operating room teams decreased the number of
adverse events reported, identified more high risk patients and
improved patient safety (Awad et al., 2005). Overall, there is good
evidence to suggest that simulation-based team training enhances
teamwork in clinical settings, and that this leads to improved
patient safety.
5. Discussion and future directions
The potential of simulation as a tool for training drivers, teams
and vehicle crews has clearly been recognised, both in civilian and
military settings. However, this review indicates that the adoption
of simulation technology has far outstripped the pace of empirical
research regarding its efficacy. This section discusses the findings
and outlines possible directions for simulation-based vehicle
training design and evaluation.
There is a reasonable amount of evidence that trainees can learn
procedural skills relevant to driving in a simulation, and some
evidence that these skills transfer to real life performance. There is
preliminary evidence to suggest that transfer is dependent on an
interaction between the capabilities of the training simulation and
the affordances of the target skill, although at the present time
there are insufficient well-controlled studies to fully support this
conclusion. The studies presented in the literature suffer from
significant limitations such as a lack of a control group, non-
random assignment to training groups, failure to report the
results of statistical tests, lack of specification of the instructional
overlay and often a failure to measure transfer of training at all.
There is much more evidence that higher-order cognitive skills
can be effectively trained using vehicle simulations. In particular, it
appears that relatively simple vehicle simulations, representing
only the field of view of the driver, can be used to train hazard
perception skills that transfer to real world driving behaviour. More
work needs to be done to establish whether similar methods are
effective for attentional control training.
441
There is no direct evidence to support the efficacy of simulations
for vehicle crew training. However, evidence from the aviation and
medical training domains provide evidence that it may be effective.
Much further research is required to determine whether these
results apply to the vehicle domain.
One consistent limitation of studies in this domain is the failure
to examine the impact of simulation-based training on road safety
outcomes (e.g. crash rates, crash type, crash severity and time to
first crash). This gap is particularly significant considering that
improved safety is the key outcome for most real life driver training
programs and is the ultimate goal of crew resource management
training. Moreover, vehicle simulations have been repeatedly
criticised for the lack of risk and complexity compared with real
vehicles (e.g. Dingus et al., 2006; Evans, 2004). If these factors are
essential to learning how to respond to safety critical driving
situations, negative safety outcomes might occur if simulation-
based driver training is used as a substitute for on-road driver
training. Examining the impact of simulation-based vehicle
training on road safety outcomes should therefore be afforded the
highest priority in future research.
As discussed, attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of simula-
tion training for drivers and vehicle crews are few. Primarily this is
because of the various difficulties associated with the conduct of
valid training transfer studies, including that they are labour
intensive, costly, long in duration, require large participant
samples, and often produce unfavourable results or insufficient
evidence to enable valid conclusions (Groeger, 2001; Rolfe and
Caro, 1982; Liu et al., 2008). It is also notable that there is limited
guidance within the literature on how to conduct valid training
transfer studies; researchers wishing to evaluate training programs
have little guidance on the most appropriate way to do so.
As a result of the lack of training evaluation studies, practitioners
wishing to develop simulation-based driving training programs
have limited evidence available to inform their training system
design. This is especially problematic given the proliferation of
vehicle simulators available. Salmon et al. (2012) have recently
proposed a model to assist in training technology selection, design
and implementation that could be applied to the vehicle-based
training domain. The model is based on an exhaustive review of
the human factors and training literature, and consists of four stages:
1) training program definition, 2) training technology identification,
evaluation and selection, 3) design, test and refine training program,
and 4) delivery and evaluation of training program. Each stage
consists of number of well-defined steps to achieve the goal. In
particular, the model proposes that the design of any training
program should begin with a detailed description of where training
is required, what needs to be trained and the target trainees, which
can be achieved through training needs analysis (TNA) incorporating
task, organisational and trainee analyses. The TNA outputs should
then inform the specifications of the simulation (i.e. capabilities), the
design of the scenarios, the type and frequency of feedback that is
given during training, and the measurement of performance.
There are a number of key findings from the aviation and
medical domains that should inform the design of each of these
elements. Firstly, a more realistic simulation is not necessarily
a more effective training tool (Dahlstrom et al., 2009). Findings
show that the field of view, scene detail and motion has no
consistent effect on the transfer of landing and air-to-ground
combat skills (Lintern and Garrison, 1992; Lintern et al., 1990,
1989, 1997; Westra et al., 1986). These skills require the pilot to
build up an inventory of procedures for operating the aircraft
technical systems, so it is only necessary to simulate these char-
acteristics (Carretta and Dunlap, 1998; Dahlstrom et al., 2009; Hays
et al., 1992). Similarly, a number of reviews conclude that medical
training in basic procedural skills like suturing can be delivered
442 N. Goode et al. / Applied Ergonomics 44 (2013) 435e444
using part-task simulations, while training in more complex clin-
ical procedures requires more sophisticated simulations of the
entire human system (Carroll and Messenger, 2008; Kneebone
et al., 2007; McGaghie et al., 2010). These results imply that for
driver training, the simulation should retain only the affordances
of the target task, so that task performance in the simulation is
consistent with real world behaviour. That is, the functional
requirements of the simulator should match the training programs
objective.
It should be acknowledged, however, that one particular barrier
to designing or selecting training-appropriate vehicle simulations is
the lack of a comprehensive taxonomy for describing their features.
The taxonomies that have been proposed (e.g. Brock et al., 2001) are
outdated and largely focus on the technological aspects of the
simulation. To describe the studies included in the review, a three-
dimensional framework was proposed which encompassed the
simulation capabilities, the training scenarios and the instructional
overlay. While this proved sufficient for the review, it would be of
limited value in selecting or constructing a vehicle simulation for
driver training, where the critical aim is to identify the capabilities
required to simulate the cognitive and psychomotor aspects of the
target task. Vehicle simulators in and of themselves may not be the
best starting point for developing a more appropriate taxonomy;
largely because the results will always be tied to the technology of
the time. This will only exacerbate the widely acknowledged issue of
technology driven training programs. It is the author’s opinion that it
would be more useful to start with a description of the interactive
components of real vehicles, the psychomotor and cognitive aspects
of driving tasks and the real driving environment. There is a signifi-
cant amount of literature on driver’s behaviour that could inform
this task (e.g. Demir and Çavuşog lu, 2012; Groeger, 2000). The next
step would be to link each element in the taxonomy to the capa-
bilities that are required to effectively simulate them, ignoring the
limitations of current technology.
Secondly, the scenarios should be designed so trainees can prac-
tice the target skill under variable conditions. In aviation, findings
show that more repetitions under the same conditions do not lead to
more learning or transfer (Westra et al., 1986; Lintern et al., 1989,
1997; Pfeiffer et al., 1991; Rantanen and Talleur, 2005). This implies
that practice is only useful until learning reaches an asymptotic level.
Variable trials are better than repeated trials to ensure that what is
what is learnt during the training transfers to novel circumstances
(Westra et al., 1986). Findings from medical training are consistent
with these conclusions (McGaghie et al., 2010).
The type and frequency of feedback that is best for learning and
transfer are less clear. In aviation, some evidence suggests that
constant feedback produces more learning and transfer than no
feedback or adaptive feedback (Lintern et al., 1990). However, this
finding is inconsistent (e.g. Lintern et al., 1997), and some studies
show that the type of feedback required is determined by the level
of scene detail (Lintern et al., 1987). In the medical domain,
a number of studies have demonstrated that feedback is better than
no feedback during simulation-based cardiopulmonary resuscita-
tion training (McGaghie et al., 2010). From these results it can be
concluded that feedback during training is beneficial; however,
several questions remain regarding the type and frequency of
feedback that should be used.
The implementation of simulation training programs should be
accompanied by systematic evaluations that assess learning and
transfer. To assess learning, the measures of performance should
target the defined behavioural outcomes of the training
(Issenberg et al., 2005). Objective measures of performance are
preferable, since flight simulation evaluations show that instructor
ratings often overestimate the effects of training (Carretta and
Dunlap, 1998; Hays et al., 1992; Rantanen and Talleur, 2005).
However, if it is only possible to assess driving performance
through instructor ratings, then standardised ratings of objectively
observable behaviours (e.g. Morgan et al., 2011) are preferable to
overall ratings of performance (e.g. Akinwuntan et al., 2005).
Moreover, in the driving domain, it is important to assess transfer of
training with two goals in mind: are improvements in the trained
behaviours evident in real world performance and does this
improve on-road safety? The first goal is common to all training
programs; training would not serve any purpose if it did not
influence performance of the target task. The second goal, however,
is particularly critical to driver training programs; training would
not serve any purpose if it did not result in improved safety
outcomes (Groeger and Banks, 2007).
Finally, the extent of learning and transfer should be
compared to a no-training control group or an alternative
method of training on the task. In the aviation domain, it is
common to compare simulation-based training to training in the
real aircraft (Liu et al., 2008; Moroney and Lilienthal, 2008).
However, in the vehicle domain, it may also be appropriate to
compare simulation-based driver training to expository instruc-
tion, as this is the core method used in traditional driver
education classes.
6. Conclusion
The review demonstrates that simulation is currently utilised to
train a range of procedural and higher-order cognitive skills rele-
vant to driving, and team-based procedural and non-technical
skills. For training procedural driving skills, there is evidence
that simulation effectively supports learning, though not enough
evidence that this translates to improvements real world driving
performance. This is largely because few studies address transfer,
and those that do have significant methodological limitations. The
evidence with regard to training higher-order cognitive skills, such
as hazard perception, is both more extensive and more positive.
Simulation-based hazard perception training improves the
capacity to identify and respond appropriately to hazards in
simulated driving environments, and these skills are also evident
on-road. However, it remains unknown whether trainees will
apply what they have learnt on the road when they are not under
test conditions, or whether learning these skills will result in safer
driving. No studies have assessed the effectiveness of simulation
for training team-based procedural or non-technical skills in the
vehicle domain. However, evidence from the medical and aviation
domain concerning the efficacy of simulation for such training is
encouraging.
Advances in technological capability have placed simulation at
the forefront of training in many domains. The inescapable
conclusion, however, is that there is currently insufficient evidence
to support the claim that vehicle simulation is an effective tool for
training. The limited evidence available does suggest, however, that
it has the potential to be effective for a range of applications. More
valid and rigorous evaluations of simulation-based driver training
programs are urged, as is the application of knowledge from the
medical and aviation domains to inform future simulation-based
driver training design efforts.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted in partnership with staff from
DSTO’s Land Operations Division. We particularly acknowledge the
on-going project management provided by Justin Fidock. Dr Paul
Salmon’s contribution to this paper was funded through his
Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Public
Health post-doctoral fellowship.
 N. Goode et al. / Applied Ergonomics 44 (2013) 435e444 443

References Hays, R.T., Singer, M.J., 1989. Simulation Fidelity in Training System Design: Bridging
the Gap between Reality and Training. Springer-Verlag, University of Wisconsin,
Madison.
Akinwuntan, A.E., De Weerdt, W., Feys, H., Pauwels, J., Baten, G., Arno, P., Kiekens, C.,
Hays, R.T., Jacobs, J.W., Prince, C., Salas, E., 1992. Flight simulator training effec-
2005. Effect of simulator training on driving after stroke. Neurology 65, 843e
tiveness: a meta-analysis. Military Psychology 4, 63e74.
850.
Issenberg, B.S., McGaghie, W.C., Petrusa, E.R., Lee Gordon, D., Scalese, R.J., 2005.
Allen, R.W., Rosenthal, T.J., Park, G.D., Cook, M.L., Fiorentino, D.D., Viirre, E., 2003.
Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective
Experience with a low cost, PC based system for Young driver training. In:
learning: a BEME systematic review. Medical Teacher 27, 10e28.
Dorn, L. (Ed.), Driver Behaviour and Training. Ashgate Publishing Limited,
Ivancic, K., Hesketh, B., 2000. Learning from errors in a driving simulation: effects
Hampshire, UK.
on driving skill and self-confidence. Ergonomics 43, 1966e1984.
Allen, R.W., Park, G.D., Cook, M.L., Fiorentino, D., 2007. The Effect of Driving Simulator
Jentsch, F., Curtis, M., Salas, E., 2011. Simulation in Aviation Training. University of
Fidelity on Training Effectiveness. DSC 2007 North America, Iowa City.
Central Florida, USA.
Allen, R.W., Rosenthal, T.J., Cook, M.L., 2011. A short history of driving simulation. In:
Kappé, B., Emmerik, M.L., 2005. The Use of Driving Simulators for Initial Driver
Fischer, D.L., Rizzo, M., Caird, J.K., Lee, J.D. (Eds.), Handbook of Driving Simu-
Training and Testing. TNO Defence, Security and Safety.
lation for Engineering, Medicine and Psychology. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis,
Kappé, B., Emmerik, M.v., Winsum, W.v., Rozendom, A., 2003. Virtual instruction in
London, New York. 2e1-2-16.
driving simulators. In: Driving Simulator Conference, Dearborn, Michigan.
Awad, S.S., Fagan, S.P., Bellows, C., Albo, D., Green-Rashad, B., De la Garza, M.,
Kappler, W.D., 2008. Smart Driver Training Simulation. Save Money, Prevent.
Berger, D., 2005. Bridging the communication gap in the operating room with
Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
medical team training. American Journal of Surgery 190, 770e774.
Kaptein, N.A., Theeuwes, J., Van Der Horst, R., 1996. Driving simulator validity: some
Beanland, V., Goode, N., Salmon, P.M., Lenné, M.G., 2011. The Efficacy of Advanced
considerations. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Driver Training: A Targeted Literature Review. CurtineMonash Accident
Research Board 1550, 30e36.
Research Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Kearney, J.K., Grechkin, T.F., 2011. Scenario authoring. In: Fisher, D.L., Rizzo, M.,
Blanco, M., Hickman, S.J., Hanowski, R.J., Morgan, J.F., 2011. The commercial driver.
Caird, J.K., Lee, J.D. (Eds.), Handbook of Driving Simulation for Engineering,
In: Fischer, D.L., Rizzo, M., Caird, J.K., Lee, J.D. (Eds.), Driving Simulation for
Medicine and Psychology. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis, New York, London,
Engineering, Medicine and Psychology. Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL.
pp. 6-1e6-12.
Brannick, M.T., Prince, C., Salas, E., 2005. Can PC-based systems enhance team-
Kneebone, R.L., Nestel, D., Vincent, C., Darzi, A., 2007. Complexity, risk and simu-
work in the cockpit? The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 15,
lation in learning procedural skills. Medical Education 41, 808e814.
173e187.
Kovacs, G., 1997. Procedural skills in medicine: linking theory to practice. Journal of
Brock, J.F., Jacobs, C., Cott, H.v., Mccauley, M., Norstrom, D.M., 2001. Simulators and
Emergency Medicine 15 (3), 387e391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0736-
Bus Safety: Guidelines for Acquiring and Using Transit Bus Operator Driving
4679(97)00019-X.
Simulators. Transportation Research Board d National Research Council.
Lammers, R.L., 2007. Simulation: the new teaching tool. Annals of Emergency
Carlozzi, N.E., Gade, V., Rizzo, A.S., Tulsky, D.S., 2012. Using virtual reality driving
Medicine 49.
simulators in persons with spinal cord injury: three screen display versus head
Lintern, G., Garrison, W.V., 1992. Transfer effects of scene content and crosswind in
mounted display. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 0, 1e5.
landing instruction. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 2, 225e244.
Carretta, T.R., Dunlap, R.D., 1998. Transfer of Effectiveness in Flight Simulation: 1986
Lintern, G., Thomley-Yates, K.E., Nelson, B.E., Roscoe, S.N., 1987. Content, variety, and
to 1997. Air Force Research Laboratory, NTIS, U.S.
augmentation of simulated visual scenes for teaching air-to-ground attack.
Carroll, J., Messenger, J., 2008. Medical simulation: the new tool for training and
Human Factors 29, 45e59.
skill assessment. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 51, 47e60.
Lintern, G., Sheppard, D.J., Parker, D.L., Yates, K.E., et al., 1989. Simulator design and
Cox, D.J., Davis, M., Singh, H., Barbour, B., Don Nidiffer, F., Trudel, T., Mourant, R.,
instructional features for air-to-ground attack: a transfer study. Human Factors
Moncrief, R., 2010. Driving Rehabilitation for Military Personnel Recovering
31, 87e99.
From Traumatic Brain Injury Using Virtual Reality Driving Simulation: A
Lintern, G., Roscoe, S.N., Sivier, J.E., 1990. Display principles, control dynamics, and
Feasibility Study. Association of Military Surgeons, Bethesda, MD, ETATS-
environmental factors in pilot training and transfer. Human Factors 32, 299e
UNIS.
317.
Dahlstrom, N., Dekker, S., van Winsen, R., Nyce, J., 2009. Fidelity and validity of
Lintern, G., Taylor, H.L., Koonce, J.M., Kaiser, R.H., Morrison, G.A., 1997. Transfer and
simulator training. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 10, 305e314.
lu, A., 2012. A new driver behavior model to create realistic quasi-transfer effects of scene detail and visual augmentation in landing
Demir, M., Çavuşog
training. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 7, 149e169.
urban traffic environment. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology
Liu, D., Macchiarella, N., Blickensderfer, E., Vincenzi, D., 2008. Transfer of Training,
and Behaviour 15, 289e296.
Human Factors in Simulation and Training. CRC Press, pp. 49e60.
Diete, F., 2008. Evaluation of a Simulator Based Novice Driver Risk Awareness
McGaghie, W.C., Issenberg, B.S., Petrusa, E.R., Scalese, R.J., 2010. A critical review of
Training Program. Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Graduate School of
simulation-based medical education research: 2003e2009. Medical Education
the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
44, 50e63.
Dingus, T.A., Klauer, S.G., Neale, V.L., Petersen, A., Lee, S.E., Sudweeks, J., Perez, M.A.,
Morgan, J.F., Tidwell, S., Medina, A., Blanco, M., 2011. On the training and testing of
Hankey, J., Ramsey, D., Gupta, S., Bucher, C., Doerzaph, Z.R., Jermeland, J.,
entry-level commercial motor vehicle drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention
Knipling, R.R., 2006. The 100-car Naturalistic Driving Study, Phase II e Results of the
43, 1400e1407.
100-car Field Experiment. Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, Blacksburg,
Moroney, W., Lilienthal, M., 2008. Human Factors in Simulation and Training,
Virginia.
Human Factors in Simulation and Training. CRC Press, pp. 3e38.
Espie, S., Gauriat, P., Duraz, M., 2005. Driving simulators validation: the issue of
Nalmpantis, D., Naniopoulos, A., Bekiaris, E., Panou, M., Gregersen, N.P., Falkmer, T.,
transferability of results acquired on simulator. In: Driving Simulation Confer-
Baten, G., Juan, D., 2005. “TRAINER” project: pilot application for the evaluation
ence DSC, Orlando.
of new driver training technologies. In: Underwood, G. (Ed.), Traffic and
Evans, L., 2004. Traffic Safety. Science Serving Society, Bloomfield, MI.
Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Elsevier, Nottingham, England,
Falkmer, T., Gregersen, N.P., 2003. The TRAINER project e the evaluation of a new
pp. 141e156.
simulator-based driver training methodology. In: Dorn, L. (Ed.), Driver Behav-
Neukum, A., Lang, B., Krueger, H.P., 2003. A simulator-based training for emergency
iour and Training. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., Stratford-upon-Avon, England,
vehicle driving. In: Proceedings of the Driver Simulation Conference, Dearborn,
pp. 317e330.
Michigan.
Fisher, D.L., Laurie, N.E., Glaser, R., Connerney, K., Pollatsek, A., Duffy, S.A., Brock, J.,
Oskarsson, P.-A., Nählinder, S., Svensson, E., 2010. A meta study of transfer of
2002. Use of a fixed-base driving simulator to evaluate the effects of experience
training. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings,
and PC-based risk awareness training on drivers’ decisions. Human Factors: The
2422e2426.
Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 44, 287e302. %R
Pfeiffer, M.G., Horey, J.D., Butrimas, S.K., 1991. Transfer of simulated instrument
210.1518/0018720024497853.
training to instrument and contact flight. International Journal of Aviation
Fisher, D.L., Pradhan, A.K., Pollatsek, A., Knodler, M.A., 2007. Empirical evaluation of
Psychology 1, 219e229.
hazard anticipation behaviors in the field and on driving simulator using eye
Pinto, M., Cavallo, V., Ohlmann, T., 2008. The development of driving simulator:
tracker. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
toward a multi-sensory solution. Le Travail Humain 71, 62e95.
Board 2018, 80e86.
Pollatsek, A., Narayanaan, V., Pradhan, A., Fisher, D.L., 2006. Using eye movements
Greenberg, J., Blommer, M., 2011. Physical fidelity of driving simulators. In:
to evaluate a PC-based risk awareness and perception training program on
Fischer, D.L., Rizzo, M., Caird, J.K., Lee, J.D. (Eds.), Handbook of Driving Simu-
a driving simulator. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and
lation for Engineering, Medicine and Psychology. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis,
Ergonomics Society 48, 447e464. %R 410.1518/001872006778606787.
London, New York, pp. 7-1e7-24.
Pollatsek, A.P., Vlakveld, W.P., Kappé, B., Pradhan, A., Fisher, D.L., 2011. Driving
Groeger, J.A., Banks, A.P., 2007. Anticipating the content and circumstances of skill
simulators as training and evaluation tools: novice drivers. In: Fischer, D.L.,
transfer: unrealistic expectations of driver training and graduated licensing?
Rizzo, M., Caird, J.K., Lee, J.D. (Eds.), Driving Simulation for Engineering, Medi-
Ergonomics 50, 1250e1263.
cine and Psychology. Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 30-1e30-18.
Groeger, J.A., 2000. Understanding Driving: Applying Cognitive Psychology to
Pollock, D., Bayarri, S., Vicente, E., 1999. A Historical Perspective of the Use of
a Complex Everyday Task. Psychology Press, East Sussex: UK.
Driving Simulators in Road Safety Research, Progress in System and Robot
Groeger, J.A., 2001. The lawful nature of learning: acquisition of driving skills. In:
Analysis and Control Design. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 309e320.
Proceedings of 2001 Road Safety Research, Policing & Education Conference,
Pradhan, A.K., Fisher, D.L., Pollatsek, A., 2005. The effects of PC-based training on
Melbourne.
novice drivers’ risk awareness in a driving simulator. In: Proceedings of the
444 N. Goode et al. / Applied Ergonomics 44 (2013) 435e444
Third International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assess-
ment, Training and Vehicle Design.
Pradhan, A.K., Pollatsek, A., Knodler, M., Fisher, D.L., 2009. Can younger drivers be
trained to scan for information that will reduce their risk in roadway traffic
scenarios that are hard to identify as hazardous? Ergonomics 52, 657e673.
Rantanen, E.M., Talleur, D.A., 2005. Incremental transfer and cost effectiveness of
ground-based flight trainers in university aviation programs. Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings 49, 764e768.
Reed, M.P., Green, P.A., 1999. Comparison of driving performance on-road and in
a low-cost simulator using a concurrent telephone. Ergonomics 42, 1015.
Reed, N., Parkes, A.M., 2005. TRUCKSIM: Preliminary results from cohort study in
England. HUMANIST Workshop BRNO.
Regan, M.A., Deery, H.A., Triggs, T.J., 1998. Training for attentional control in novice
car drivers: a simulator study. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society. Annual Meeting. Santa Monica. pp. 1452e1157.
Regan, M.A., Triggs, T., Godley, S., 2000. Simulator-based evaluation of the driv-
esmart novice driver CD-rom training product. In: Proceedings of the 2000
Road safety Research, Policing and Education Conference. Brisbane, Australia.
pp. 315e320.
Rolfe, J.M., Caro, P.W., 1982. Determining the training effectiveness of flight simu-
lators: some basic issues and practical developments. Applied Ergonomics 13,
243e250.
Salas, E., Wilson, K.A., Burke, C.S., Wightman, D.C., 2006. Does crew resource
management training work? An update, an extension, and some critical needs.
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48,
392e412.
Salmon, P.M., Lenne, M.G., Mitsopoulos-Rubens, E., Triggs, T., Wallace, P., 2012.
Technology-based training system design: a generic model of training tech-
nology selection, design and implementation. Journal of Battlefield Technology
15, 31e38.
Shapiro, M.J., Morey, J.C., Small, S.D., Langford, V., Kaylor, C.J., Jagminas, L., 2004.
Simulation based teamwork training for emergency department staff: does
it improve clinical team performance when added to an existing didactic
teamwork curriculum? Quality and Safety in Health Care 13 (6), 417e421.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2003.005447.
Shapiro, M.J., Gardner, R., Godwin, S.A., Jay, G.D., Lindquist, D.G., Salisbury, M.L.,
Salas, E., 2008. Defining team performance for simulation-based training:
methodology, metrics, and opportunities for emergency medicine. Academic
Emergency Medicine 15, 1088e1097.
Singh, H., Barbour, B.M., Cox, D.J., 2011. Driving rehabilitation as delivered by driving
simulation. In: Fischer, D.L., Rizzo, M., Caird, J.K., Lee, J.D. (Eds.), Driving Simu-
lation for Engineering, Medicine and Psychology. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis
Group, New York, London, pp. 32-1e32-12.
Strayer, D.L., Drews, F.A., 2003. Simulator training improves driver efficiency:
transfer from the simulator to the real world. In: Driving Assessment 2003: The
Second International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assess-
ment, Training and Vehicle Design, Park City, Utah.
Uhr, M.B.F., Felix, D., Williams, B.J., Krueger, H., 2003. Transfer of Training in an
Advanced Driving Simulator: Comparison between Real World Environment
and Simulation in a Manoeuvring Driving Task. DSC, Dearborn, Michigan.
Wachtel, J., Romoser, M.R.E., Fischer, D.L., Sizov, K.A., Mourant, R., 2005. The
potential to enhance older drivers’ critical driving skills through simulator-
based advice. In: Dorn, L. (Ed.), Driver Behaviour and Training, vol. 2. Ashgate
Publishing, Ltd., Aldershot, U.K., pp. 105e120.
Weaver, S.J., Salas, E., Lyons, R., Lazzara, E.H., Rosen, M.A., DiazGranados, D.,
Grim, J.G., Augenstein, J.S., Birnbach, D.J., King, H., 2010. Simulation-based team
training at the sharp end: a qualitative study of simulation-based team training
design, implementation, and evaluation in healthcare. Journal of Emergency,
Trauma and Shock 3, 369e377.
Weir, D.H., Clark, A.J., 1995. A Survey of Mid-level Driving Simulators. Society of
Automotive Engineers, Warrendale.
Westra, D.P., Lintern, G., Sheppard, D.J., Thomley, K.E., Mauk, R., 1986. Simulator
Design and Instructional Features for Carrier Landing: A Field Transfer Study.
Naval Training Systems Centre, Orlando: FL.
de Winter, J.C.F., Wieringa, P.A., Dankelman, J., Mulder, M., van Paassen, M.M., de
Groot, S., 2007a. Driving simulator fidelity and training effectiveness. In:
Proceedings of the 26th European Annual Conference on Human Decision
Making and Manual Control, Lyngby, Denmark.
de Winter, J.C.F., Wieringaa, P.A., Kuipersa, J., Mulderb, J.A., Mulderb, M., 2007b.
Violations and errors during simulation-based driver training. Ergonomics 50,
138e158.
de Winter, J.C.F., de Groot, S., Mulder, M., Wieringa, P.A., Dankelman, J., Mulder, J.A.,
2009. Relationships between driving simulator performance and driving test
results. Ergonomics 52, 137e153.