Executive Function
Road Crossing Task
Also called: street crossing task, pedestrian gap acceptance, gap selection task
Measure the gaps in traffic people choose for crossing a drawn street, with the gap size taken, the time to spare and the chances passed up.
7-9 minTimed: desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 87
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 1
What it measures
Measures the gaps in traffic people choose for crossing a street. Participants stand at the curb of a drawn street as cars come from the left and press when they would start to cross. Scores the gap size taken, the time to spare and the chances passed up.
Constructs
- Gap acceptance
- Time-to-arrival judgment
- Decision making under risk
Research uses
- Human factors research
- Developmental and aging research
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
The Road Crossing Task measures the gaps in traffic people choose for crossing a street. Participants stand at the curb of a drawn two-lane street and look to the left, where cars come one after another in the near lane at 30, 45 or 60 km/h, with gaps of 1.5 to 6 seconds in random order. After a white car has passed, they press the up arrow when they would start to cross, and then walk across at a set pace of 1.4 m/s. A crossing that would meet a car ends with a neutral message before they meet; no collision is shown. The task follows the gap-acceptance method of road-crossing research, with randomly ordered gaps in continuous traffic and the time to spare as the walker clears the cars' path (Plumert, Kearney and Cremer, 2004; O'Neal and colleagues, 2018), and offers the estimation version of Lobjois and Cavallo (2007) as a setting.
More about the paradigm
The standard session has 2 practice crossings, then two rounds of 9 crossings, 3 at each speed; studies can set one to three rounds. In the estimation version the picture stops as each gap opens and participants answer Cross or Wait; each round has 30 gaps, each of the ten sizes at each speed. Speeds and gaps are drawn from the session's seed. A trial pauses and blanks if the window loses focus. Desktop or laptop with a keyboard.
Scores
- Gap Acceptance Thresholdseconds
- Gap size taken half the time, from the share of gaps taken at each size.
- Higher means larger gaps were needed to cross
- Median Gap Takenseconds
- Median size of the gaps taken for crossing, or answered Cross in the estimation version.
- Higher means more cautious gap choices
- Time to Spareseconds
- Mean time from the walker clearing the cars' path to the next car arriving, over the crossings made.
- Lower means tighter crossings; at or below 0 the walk would have met a car
- Unsafe Choices%
- Share of crossings that would have met a car, or in the estimation version the share of gaps too short to cross that were answered Cross.
- Lower means safer choices
- Missed Chancescount
- Gaps passed up that would have left at least a second to spare for a walker starting at once.
- Higher means more cautious choices
- Start Delayseconds
- Median time from the car before the gap passing to the press, over crossings that met no car.
- Lower means a tighter start
- Speed Effectseconds
- Gap acceptance threshold at 60 km/h less the gap acceptance threshold at 30 km/h.
- Below zero means shorter time gaps were taken from faster cars
- Early Pressescount
- Presses of the up arrow before the white car had passed.
- Lower supports interpretation
- Trials Without a Crossingcount
- Crossing trials that ended with no press.
- Lower supports interpretation
- Pausescount
- Trial interruptions after focus loss, hiding the tab or resizing.
- Lower supports interpretation
- Long Frames%
- Share of animation frames longer than 50 ms.
- Above 0.05 is flagged
- Completed Trialscount
- Trials of the scored run that reached their end.
- Informational
- Planned Trialscount
- Trials the session planned.
- Informational
Use and evidence
87 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 93% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 301 of 670 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 16 |
| 2024 | 16 |
| 2023 | 25 |
| 2022 | 17 |
| 2021 | 13 |
| 2020 | 12 |
| 2019 | 15 |
| 2018 | 7 |
| 2017 | 5 |
| 2016 | 6 |
| 2015 | 8 |
| 2014 | 6 |
| 2013 | 5 |
| 2012 | 4 |
| 2011 | 7 |
| 2010 | 0 |
| 2009 | 2 |
| 2008 | 2 |
| 2007 | 0 |
| 2006 | 1 |
| 2005 | 2 |
| 2004 | 1 |
| 2003 | 2 |
| 2002 | 1 |
| 2001 | 1 |
| 2000 | 2 |
Use grade D
30 to 99 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 10
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 1
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
Note on the counts: includes pedestrian studies in virtual reality and with automated vehicles.
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.48.0, counted 12 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Street
- A drawn two-lane street seen from the curb, looking left at cars that come one after another in the near lane at 30, 45 and 60 km/h, a third of the crossings at each, in an order drawn from the session seed.
- Traffic
- After a white car, ten cars follow with gaps of 1.5 to 6 seconds in steps of 0.5, in random order. Participants may wait as long as they like.
- Crossing
- The up arrow starts a walk at a set pace of 1.4 m/s to the far curb. A walk that would meet a car ends with a neutral message before they meet, so no collision is shown.
- Rounds
- Two rounds of 9 crossings as standard, with one to three available, after 2 practice crossings with feedback.
- Answer
- Cross as standard. As a setting, judge each gap: the picture stops as the gap opens and participants answer Cross or Wait, 30 gaps a round, each size at each speed.
- Scores
- The gap size taken half the time, the median gap taken, the time to spare, unsafe choices, missed chances, the delay of the start, the effect of speed, and frame timing.
A drawn street and a set walking pace, with traffic in the near lane only. Scores describe gap choices in this task and do not measure road safety skills. Compare only sessions with the same answer setting. No percentile output.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: the completed trials of the scored run. Incomplete runs, frequent presses before the white car passed, pauses and long frames are flagged. A crossing trial with no crossing is a missed response under the platform's timed-test rule.
Why these rules
Missed responses and responses under 100 ms keep the platform's timed-test rule: more than max(3, 25%) missed responses or more than max(2, 20%) responses under 100 ms invalidate, and any is flagged. A response under 100 ms cannot be a reaction to the stimulus. Each trial asks for one decision, so a trial that ends with no crossing is a missed response; in the estimation version every gap is answered.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Answer | Cross (standard) | Cross (standard), Judge each gap |
| Rounds | 2 | 1 to 3 |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Road Crossing Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Lobjois and Cavallo, 2007), with the standard settings (answer: Cross; rounds: 2). The main score was gap acceptance threshold (gap size taken half the time, from the share of gaps taken at each size).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Lobjois, R., & Cavallo, V. (2007). Age-related differences in street-crossing decisions: The effects of vehicle speed and time constraints on gap selection in an estimation task. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39(5), 934-943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2006.12.013The estimation version, and the effect of vehicle speed on the time gaps people accept.
- Plumert, J. M., Kearney, J. K., & Cremer, J. F. (2004). Children's perception of gap affordances: Bicycling across traffic-filled intersections in an immersive virtual environment. Child Development, 75(4), 1243-1253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00736.xCrossing through continuous traffic, scored by the gaps chosen, the time to spare and the start.
- O'Neal, E. E., Jiang, Y., Franzen, L. J., Rahimian, P., Yon, J. P., Kearney, J. K., & Plumert, J. M. (2018). Changes in perception-action tuning over long time scales: How children and adults perceive and act on dynamic affordances when crossing roads. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(1), 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000378Road crossing through randomly ordered gaps after a marked car, scored by gap choice, timing of entry and time to spare.
Source papers
- Lobjois, R., & Cavallo, V. (2007). Age-related differences in street-crossing decisions: The effects of vehicle speed and time constraints on gap selection in an estimation task. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39(5), 934-943.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Road Crossing Task take?
About 7 to 9 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Gap Acceptance Threshold, Median Gap Taken, Time to Spare, Unsafe Choices, Missed Chances, Start Delay, Speed Effect, Early Presses, Trials Without a Crossing, Pauses, Long Frames, Completed Trials and Planned Trials. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Road Crossing Task used in research?
87 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 93% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 301 of 670 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.48.0, counted 12 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Road Crossing Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 1 registered clinical study uses it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Answer (Cross (standard), Judge each gap) and rounds (1 to 3). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.