  There is currently no established method for evaluating human response timing
across a range of naturalistic traffic conflict types. Traditional notions
derived from controlled experiments, such as perception-response time, fail to
account for the situation-dependency of human responses and offer no clear way
to define the stimulus in many common traffic conflict scenarios. As a result,
they are not well suited for application in naturalistic settings. Our main
contribution is the development of a novel framework for measuring and modeling
response times in naturalistic traffic conflicts applicable to automated
driving systems as well as other traffic safety domains. The framework suggests
that response timing must be understood relative to the subject's current
(prior) belief and is always embedded in, and dependent on, the dynamically
evolving situation. The response process is modeled as a belief update process
driven by perceived violations to this prior belief, that is, by surprising
stimuli. The framework resolves two key limitations with traditional notions of
response time when applied in naturalistic scenarios: (1) The strong
situation-dependence of response timing and (2) how to unambiguously define the
stimulus. Resolving these issues is a challenge that must be addressed by any
response timing model intended to be applied in naturalistic traffic conflicts.
We show how the framework can be implemented by means of a relatively simple
heuristic model fit to naturalistic human response data from real crashes and
near crashes from the SHRP2 dataset and discuss how it is, in principle,
generalizable to any traffic conflict scenario. We also discuss how the
response timing framework can be implemented computationally based on evidence
accumulation enhanced by machine learning-based generative models and the
information-theoretic concept of surprise.
