1. Simulator Fidelity: How low can you go? John D. Lee Cognitive Systems Laboratory The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa jdlee@engineering.uiowa.edu

2. 1 st Iowa (at Iowa State) Driving Simulator: Drivometer~1958 Lauer, A. R. (1960). The Psychology of Driving (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

3. National Advanced Driving Simulator

5. The other Iowa driving simulator: Post-modern driving simulator Rizzo, M., Severson, J., Cremer, J., & Price, K. (2002). An abstract virtual environment tool to assess decision-making in impaired drivers. In J. D. Lee, M. Rizzo & D. V. McGehee (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design. Iowa City: University of Iowa.

6. Angell, L. S., Young, R. A., Hankey, J. M., & Dingus, T. A. (2002). An evaluation of alternative methods for assessing driver workload in the early development of in-vehicle information systems. SAE, 2002-01-1981, 1-18.

7. Abstraction hierarchy as a space for describing simulator fidelity

8. Critical issues in simulator fidelity n Functional fidelity rather than physical fidelity n Fidelity should be tuned and described relative to the experimental question Scale event detection relative to “effective visual acuity” in describing resolution of simulator display Vehicle dynamics relative to vehicle control n “High-fidelity” may not be adequate

9. Fidelity: Why push the lower bounds? n Increasing fidelity can undermine experimental control n Increasing fidelity limits data collection n Increasing fidelity dilutes training n Increasing fidelity can make people sick n Fidelity=fnc(understaning -1 )?