Visual attention characteristics of supplementary safety signs and their nudge effect on risk identification in oil and gas pipelines

Xu ZHAO, Xiaoyi YANG, Xuesong YANG, Jing LI, Xuecai XIE, Xueming SHU, Yunhao ZHAO, Ruipeng TONG

Journal of Tsinghua University(Science and Technology) ›› 2026, Vol. 66 ›› Issue (8) : 1664-1674.

PDF(4393 KB)
PDF(4393 KB)
Journal of Tsinghua University(Science and Technology) ›› 2026, Vol. 66 ›› Issue (8) : 1664-1674. DOI: 10.16511/j.cnki.qhdxxb.2026.28.023
Public Safety

Visual attention characteristics of supplementary safety signs and their nudge effect on risk identification in oil and gas pipelines

Author information +
History +

Abstract

Objective: The complex working environment of oil and gas pipelines, characterized by widely distributed risk sources, often hinders employees' ability to identify risks, which is a key cause of workplace safety incidents. Supplementary safety signs act as important information carriers that complement the content of main safety signs, effectively nudging employees toward better risk identification behavior. However, their effectiveness is significantly influenced by core attributes such as color, shape, and format, but systematic research on this issue is currently lacking in the oil and gas pipeline industry. This study aims to identify how different attributes of supplementary safety signs influence employees' visual attention and nudge risk identification behavior, providing a theoretical framework for optimizing safety sign design and enhancing hazard recognition efficiency in oil and gas pipeline enterprises. Methods: Based on a major oil and gas pipeline network enterprise in China, this study selected three representative operational scenarios: anti-corrosion, pressure testing, and maintenance and repair of pipelines and storage tanks. Using 38 risk identification points as sign content, 18 groups of supplementary safety signs were designed following national standards. An orthogonal design was used to combine different attributes of color (red, blue, black) × shape (triangle, circle, rectangle) × format (text, icon). The study recruited 180 participants with at least 2 years of work experience in oil and gas pipelines, who were randomly divided into 18 groups to participate in the orthogonal experiments. A Tobii Pro Glasses 2 wearable eye tracker was used to collect four eye-tracking metrics: time to first fixation, first fixation duration, total fixation duration, and fixation count. Furthermore, two behavioral metrics—response time and accuracy of risk identification—were recorded. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), Least Significant Difference post hoc tests, and interaction plots were employed to systematically evaluate the main and interaction effects of color, shape, format, and their combinations on visual attention characteristics and behavioral nudge effects. Results: Color and shape were the primary drivers of visual attention orientation and behavioral accuracy. Specifically, red and triangular designs significantly shortened the time to first fixation (by 411 ms and 213 ms, respectively) and improved behavioral accuracy by 5.79% and 2.20%, respectively. Notably, color (Partial η2 = 83.6%) and shape (Partial η2 = 55.2%) exhibited the strongest main effects on time to first fixation. The format was the main driver of sustained visual attention. Specifically, text signs drew more engagement than icon signs, increasing first fixation by 363 ms, total fixation by 350 ms, and fixation count by 1.93. The findings also demonstrated that color and format were critical factors influencing risk identification response time. Red signs outperformed blue and black variations, shortening the response times by 564 ms and 540 ms, respectively. Similarly, icon signs shortened the response time by 878 ms relative to text signs. Color (Partial η2 = 90.3%) and format (Partial η2 = 96.3%) exhibited the strongest main effects on response time. Significant synergistic effects were observed among attributes: the red–triangle combination yielded the highest behavioral accuracy, outperforming blue and black combinations by 7.93% and 8.92%, respectively. Furthermore, the red–icon combination resulted in the fastest response time, reducing it by approximately 792 ms compared with blue–icon and black–icon combinations. Finally, shape and format interacted significantly regarding total fixation duration; triangles and circles attracted longer fixation durations in text format but shorter durations when paired with icons. Conclusions: The color, shape, and format differentially influence employees' visual attention orientation, sustained attention, and risk identification nudge effects among employees in oil and gas pipeline enterprises. Red and triangular attributes rapidly capture attention and enhance behavioral accuracy, text facilitates sustained attention, and icons accelerate behavioral responses significantly. Synergistic designs further amplify these nudge effects. This study recommends that the oil and gas pipeline industry treat supplementary safety signs as independent management units using optimal color–shape–format combinations. The findings offer theoretical and empirical support for optimizing safety signage in high-risk, large-scale industrial scenarios. Future research should validate the generalizability of these findings in real-world operational settings.

Key words

safety signs / visual attention characteristics / risk identification behavior / eye tracking / nudge effect

Cite this article

Download Citations
Xu ZHAO , Xiaoyi YANG , Xuesong YANG , et al . Visual attention characteristics of supplementary safety signs and their nudge effect on risk identification in oil and gas pipelines[J]. Journal of Tsinghua University(Science and Technology). 2026, 66(8): 1664-1674 https://doi.org/10.16511/j.cnki.qhdxxb.2026.28.023

References

1
AL-DOURI A, HALIM S Z, QUDDUS N, et al. A stochastic approach to evaluating the economic impact of disruptions in feedstock pipelines on downstream production[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2022, 162, 187- 199.
2
CHEN C G, HU J Q, ZHANG L B, et al. Early warning method of unsafe behavior accidents for offshore drilling operators based on eye-tracking trajectory[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2023, 177, 1506- 1522.
3
LINDHOUT P, RENIERS G. What about nudges in the process industry? Exploring a new safety management tool[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2017, 50, 243- 256.
4
COSTA S, DUYCK W, VAN WOUWE E, et al. Nudging safety behavior in the steel industry: Evidence from two field studies[J]. Safety Science, 2024, 173, 106444.
5
宋富美, 王明, 张艺馨, 等. 环境照明对安全标志识别的视觉疲劳影响[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2025, 25(22): 9613- 9620.
SONG F M, WANG M, ZHANG Y X, et al. Influence of environmental lighting on visual fatigue of safety sign recognition[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2025, 25(22): 9613- 9620.
6
中华人民共和国应急管理部. 安全色和安全标志: GB 2894-2025[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2025.
Ministry of Emergency Management of the People's Republic of China. Safety colours and safety signs: GB 2894-2025[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2025. (in Chinese)
7
CHEN J Y, WANG R Q, LIN Z H, et al. Measuring the cognitive loads of construction safety sign designs during selective and sustained attention[J]. Safety Science, 2018, 105, 9- 21.
8
NG A W Y, CHAN A H S. Effects of user factors and sign referent characteristics in participatory construction safety sign redesign[J]. Safety Science, 2015, 74, 44- 54.
9
姜伟, 李世波, 朱志明, 等. 煤矿安全标志的现场及理论设计依据研究[J]. 煤矿安全, 2015, 46(10): 232- 235.
JIANG W, LI S B, ZHU Z M, et al. Study on spot and theoretical design consideration of coal mine safety signs[J]. Safety in Coal Mines, 2015, 46(10): 232- 235.
10
牛国庆, 崔彩彩, 张坤. 辅助文字对安全标志识别性影响的眼动研究[J]. 河南理工大学学报(自然科学版), 2014, 33(4): 410- 415.
NIU G Q, CUI C C, ZHANG K. An eye movement study of auxiliary words effect to safety signs' recognition[J]. Journal of Henan Polytechnic University (Natural Science), 2014, 33(4): 410- 415.
11
MAULINA D, IRWANDA D Y, AUDINIA S, et al. How supplementary sign features can improve traffic safety among motorcyclists? The effect of capitalization and information length on road sign comprehension[J]. Traffic Injury Prevention, 2023, 24(8): 707- 715.
12
MATTHEWS B, ANDRONACO R, ADAMS A. Warning signs at beaches: Do they work?[J]. Safety Science, 2014, 62, 312- 318.
13
景国勋, 孙妍琳, 蒋方. 安全标志排列顺序的视觉注意特征研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2022, 18(11): 197- 202.
JING G X, SUN Y L, JIANG F. Study on visual attention characteristics of arrangement order of safety signs[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2022, 18(11): 197- 202.
14
WINKLER S, KAZAZI J, VOLLRATH M. How to warn drivers in various safety-critical situations – different strategies, different reactions[J]. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2018, 117, 410- 426.
15
YUAN J P, SONG Z P, HU Y, et al. Electrophysiological correlates of processing warning signs with different background colors: An event-related potentials investigation[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2021, 12, 648871.
16
NG A W Y, CHAN A H S. Color associations among designers and non-designers for common warning and operation concepts[J]. Applied Ergonomics, 2018, 70, 18- 25.
17
PRAVOSSOUDOVITCH K, CURY F, YOUNG S G, et al. Is red the colour of danger? Testing an implicit red-danger association[J]. Ergonomics, 2014, 57(4): 503- 510.
18
BAI X X, HU L F, MA Q G. Can't ignore surrounding shapes: Neural processing mechanisms of safety sign designs[J]. Safety Science, 2024, 177, 106594.
19
MA Q G, BAI X X, PEI G X, et al. The hazard perception for the surrounding shape of warning signs: Evidence from an event-related potentials study[J]. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 2018, 12, 824.
20
LIN W J, LIN J Y, YANG Y, et al. The difference in the warning effect of different warning signs[J]. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 2022, 28(2): 890- 900.
21
DUARTE E, REBELO F, TELES J, et al. Behavioral compliance for dynamic versus static signs in an immersive virtual environment[J]. Applied Ergonomics, 2014, 45(5): 1367- 1375.
22
杨亚格, 孙林辉, 代宗, 等. 煤矿安全标志属性特征的视觉注意效果研究[J]. 煤矿安全, 2022, 53(3): 249- 252.
YANG Y G, SUN L H, DAI Z, et al. Research on visual attention effect of characteristics of coal mine safety signs[J]. Safety in Coal Mines, 2022, 53(3): 249- 252.
23
SHI J G, DING N, JIANG F. The influence of color and direction on the perceptual processing of standard evacuation signs and the effect of attention bias[J]. Fire Safety Journal, 2022, 132, 103638.
24
ZHANG Z, GUO B H W, FENG Z N, et al. Investigating the interplay of bottom-up and top-down attention in hazard recognition: Insights from immersive virtual reality, eye-tracking and electroencephalography[J]. Safety Science, 2025, 187, 106841.
25
FANG Y Q, NI G D, GAO F L, et al. Influencing mechanism of safety sign features on visual attention of construction workers: A study based on eye-tracking technology[J]. Buildings, 2022, 12(11): 1883.
26
VARELA F, TAN M Y, FORSYTH M. An overview of major methods for inspecting and monitoring external corrosion of on-shore transportation pipelines[J]. Corrosion Engineering, Science and Technology: The International Journal of Corrosion Processes and Corrosion Control, 2015, 50(3): 226- 235.
27
ZHANG K X, LI J F, YU B, et al. Fast prediction of the replacement process of oil vapor in horizontal tank and its improved safety evaluation method[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2019, 122, 298- 306.
28
KIM K N, KIM T H, LEE M J. Analysis of building construction jobsite accident scenarios based on big data association analysis[J]. Buildings, 2023, 13(8): 2120.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited.
PDF(4393 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/