Objective: The present protocol aims to understand how participants represent traffic signs (Psychology of Thinking) and how the attention of these signs-and the way of processing them-can influence on their path movement (Motor Processes). Knowing how humans process the meaning of signs (not just by learning but instinctively understood) will improve reaction times and decision making when driving.
Background: In laboratory tasks, a number of models have attempted to explain the general relationship between attention and movement. The cornerstone of the effects is found on the meaning of attentional cues.
Method: By using a tracking task, the influence of traffic signs on movement is been tested.
Results: Results point out that the signs least representative of their meaning produce a greater deviation from the center of the simulated road than the most representative signs.
Conclusions: The economic, social and psychological consequences of car accidents are well-established. Every single effort orientated to amend this social problem is welcome. Taking into account the results reported in this work, it is recommended that the traffic signs are designed as much representative of their meaning as possible.
Application: The methodology used in this study can be applied to testing the Cognitive Ergonomics of signposting on roads; analyzing, classifying, and discarding the traffic signs that produce counterproductive effects on movement from the current Manuals of Traffic Signposting all around countries.•An original methodology has been generated for classifying traffic signs, which has not been never tested in the literature.•The well-consolidated tracking task is used for evaluating their effect on movement.•The main result is that traffic signs, that do not represent properly their meaning, provoke a significant and dangerous deviation from the drivers' path.
Keywords: A protocol to analyze the Representativity and Univocity of traffics signs; Cognitive ergonomics; Driving; MDRA model; Traffic signs.