The difference in the warning effect of different warning signs

References

• Xu X, Šarić Ž. Investigation into interactions between accident consequences and traffic signs: a Bayesian bivariate tobit quantile regression approach. J Adv Transp. 2018: 1–10. Article ID 5032497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laughery KR, Wogalter MS. A three-stage model summarizes product warning and environmental sign research. Saf Sci. 2014;61:3–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.02.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang Y, Lee JD, Yekhshatyan L. How dangerous is looking away from the road? Algorithms predict crash risk from glance patterns in naturalistic driving. Hum Factors. 2012;54(6):1104–1116. doi: 10.1177/0018720812446965
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hou G, Lu G. Semantic processing and emotional evaluation in the traffic sign understanding process: evidence from an event-related potential study. Transport Res F-Traf. 2018;59:236–243. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2018.08.020
   Google Scholar
• Zhu L, Ma Q, Bai X, et al. Mechanisms behind hazard perception of warning signs: an EEG study. Transport Res F-Traf. 2020;69:362–374. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2020.02.001
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Bassat T, Shinar D. The effect of context and drivers’ age on highway traffic signs comprehension. Transport Res F-Traf. 2015;33:117–127. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2015.07.009
   Google Scholar
• Pravossoudovitch K, Cury F, Young SG, et al. Is red the colour of danger? Testing an implicit red–danger association. Ergonomics. 2014;57(4):503–510. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2014.889220
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siu KWM, Lam MS, Wong YL. Gender differences in children's use of colors in designing safety signs. Procedia Manuf. 2015;3:4650–4657. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.554
   Google Scholar
• Ng AWY, Chan AHS. Color associations among designers and non-designers for common warning and operation concepts. Appl Ergon. 2018;70:18–25. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2018.02.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma Q, Bai X, Pei G, et al. The hazard perception for the surrounding shape of warning signs: evidence from an event-related potentials study. Front Neurosci-Switz. 2018;12. Article ID 824.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma Q, Jin J, Wang L. The neural process of hazard perception and evaluation for warning signal words: evidence from event-related potentials. Neurosci Lett. 2010;483(3):206–210. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2010.08.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellier E, Wright DB, Edworthy J, et al. On the stability of the arousal strength of warning signal words. Appl Cogn Psych. 2000;14(6):577–592. doi:<577::AID-ACP682>3.0.CO;2-A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinar D, Vogelzang M. Comprehension of traffic signs with symbolic versus text displays. Transport Res F-Traf. 2013;18:72–82. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2012.12.012
   Google Scholar
• Chen C, Liu T, Huang K. Characteristics of warning labels for drug containers and their effects on perceived hazardousness. Saf Sci. 2015;78:149–154. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.04.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu RF, Chan AHS, Salvendy G. Chinese perceptions of implied hazard for signal literacy and surround shapes. Hum Factor Ergon Man. 2010;14(1):69–80.
   Google Scholar
• Dewar RE, Swanson HA. Recognition of traffic control signs. Highw Res Rec. 1972;414:16–23.
   Google Scholar
• Ells JG, Dewar RE. Rapid comprehension of verbal and symbolic traffic sign messages. Hum Factors. 1979;21(2):161–168. doi: 10.1177/001872087902100203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinar D, Dewar RE, Summala H, et al. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. Ergonomics. 2003;46(15):1549–1565. doi: 10.1080/0014013032000121615
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Madani H, Al-Janahi LR. Role of drivers’ personal characteristics in understanding traffic sign symbols. Accident Anal Prev. 2002;34:185–196. doi: 10.1016/S0001-4575(01)00012-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu BF, Wood MM, Egnoto M, et al. Is a picture worth a thousand words? The effects of maps and warning messages on how publics respond to disaster information. Public Relat Rev. 2017;43(3):493–506. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandenberghe R, Price C, Wise R, et al. Functional anatomy of a common semantic system for words and pictures. Nature. 1996;383(6597):254–256. doi: 10.1038/383254a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huettel SA, McCarthy G. What is odd in the oddball task? Prefrontal cortex is activated by dynamic changes in response strategy. Neuropsychologia. 2004;42(3):379–386. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.07.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Picton TW. The P300 wave of the human event-related potential. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1992;9(4):456–479. doi: 10.1097/00004691-199210000-00002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrmann CS, Knight RT. Mechanisms of human attention: event-related potentials and oscillations. Neurosci Biobehav R. 2001;25(6):465–476. doi: 10.1016/S0149-7634(01)00027-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falkenstein M, Hoormann J, Hohnsbein J. ERP components in go/nogo tasks and their relation to inhibition. Acta Psychol. 1999;101(2-3):267–291. doi: 10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00008-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith JL, Johnstone SJ, Barry RJ. Effects of pre-stimulus processing on subsequent events in a warned go/nogo paradigm: response preparation, execution and inhibition. Int J Psychophysiol. 2006;61(2):121–133. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.07.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menon V, Adleman NE, White CD, et al. Error-related brain activation during a go/nogo response inhibition task. Hum Brain Mapp. 2001;12(3):131–143. doi:<131::AID-HBM1010>3.0.CO;2-C
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tombu M, Jolicoeur P. A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003;29(1):3–18. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser WR, Glaser MO. Context effects in stroop-like word and picture processing. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1989;118(1):13–42. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.118.1.13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller EK, Cohen JD. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2001;24(1):167–202. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li H, Xia T, Wang L. Neural correlates of the reverse Simon effect in the Hedge and Marsh task. Neuropsychologia. 2015;75:119–131. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.05.028
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xia T, Li H, Wang L. Implicitly strengthened task-irrelevant stimulus–response associations modulate cognitive control: evidence from an fMRI study. Hum Brain Mapp. 2016;37(2):756–772. doi: 10.1002/hbm.23064
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao Y, Cao X, Yue Z, et al. Temporal and spectral dynamics underlying cognitive control modulated by task-irrelevant stimulus–response learning. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2017;17(1):158–173. doi: 10.3758/s13415-016-0469-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monsell S. Task switching. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003;7(3):134–140. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jost K, Mayr U, Rösler F. Is task switching nothing but cue priming? Evidence from ERPs. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2008;8(1):74–84. doi: 10.3758/CABN.8.1.74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gajewski PD, Falkenstein M. Diversity of the P3 in the task-switching paradigm. Brain Res. 2011;1411:87–97. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2011.07.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monsell S, Mizon GA. Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process? J Exp Psychol Hum. 2006;32(3):493–516. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.493
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Philipp AM, Jolicoeur P, Falkenstein M, et al. Response selection and response execution in task switching: evidence from a go-signal paradigm. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007;33(6):1062–1075. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.6.1062
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barutchu A, Becker SI, Carter O, et al. The role of task-related learned representations in explaining asymmetries in task switching. PLoS One. 2013;8(4). Article ID e61729. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wogalter MS, Laughery KR. Warning! Sign and label effectiveness. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 1996;5(2):33–37. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772712
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wogalter MS, Sojourner RJ, Brelsford JW. Comprehension and retention of safety pictorials. Ergonomics. 1997;40(5):531–542. doi: 10.1080/001401397188017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar