## 3 Results
### Time-To-Passage  
The values of TTP were very similar across conditions. Nevertheless, a slightly lower value of TTP for the stop and constant speed conditions was noticeable when compared with the slow down condition. Regarding the type of auditory condition, lower values of TTP were found when the gasoline vehicle approached than in the others. The highest values of TTP were found in no sound condition (Figure 6). Figure 5: Distribution of the number of crossings (N) with the mean standard error (horizontal lines) of the response time, by the participants, as a function of response time, per speed pattern and auditory condition. The results of the Linear Mixed Model confirmed what is shown in Figure 6. The auditory condition had a significant influence on the TTP. The obtained values of TTP regarding the no sound stimuli (m = 3.01 s; sd = 1.34 s; \(p\) = 0.02) were significantly higher than those obtained with the approaching of the electric vehicle (m = 2.80 s; sd = 0.83 s). When the gasoline combustion vehicle (m = 2.61 s; sd = 0.81 s; \(p\) = 0.04) approached the participants, the TTP was significantly lower than observed for the remaining auditory conditions. Regarding the speed pattern, the results of the model showed the TTP for the slow down (m = 3.00 s; sd = 0.30 s; \(p\) = 0.40) and stop (m = 2.62 s; sd = 1.42 s; \(p\) = 0.81) patterns was not significantly different from that verified for the constant speed pattern (m = 2.59 s; sd = 0.44 s). Because TTP is the result of dividing the vehicle distance by the approaching velocity, the role of these two components was analyzed in more detail. Two Linear Mixed Models were developed to assess the influence of the auditory condition on the distance at which the vehicle was and the speed it was going at the moment the participants decided to cross. The analysis in Figure 7 shows that these distances were very similar in all auditory conditions, considering each speed pattern separately. The results of the model show that the recorded distances at the moment of response did not differ in the no sound condition (m = 9.45 m; sd = 4.98 m; \(p\) = 0.70) or in the gasoline condition (m = 9.50 m; sd = 3.54 m; \(p\) = 0.39) when compared with those registered when approaching the electric vehicle (m = 9.37 m; sd = 4.12 m). Nevertheless, this variable appeared to be affected by the vehicle speed pattern. In the stop pattern (m = 6.82 m; sd = 3.03 m; \(p\) < 0.01) the registered distances were shorter than those of the slow down pattern (m = 11.76 m; sd = 3.53 m; \(p\) < 0.01), which, in turn, were shorter than the constant pattern (m = 18.94 m; sd = 2.78 m). Figure 6: Mean TTP and respective mean standard error as a function of auditory condition, per vehicle speed pattern. Figure 7: Mean distance between the vehicles and participants at the moment of the participants’ responses and respective mean standard error as a function of auditory condition, per vehicle speed pattern. Regarding the vehicle speed at the moment of the participants' response, Figure 8 shows a great similarity between the three auditory conditions. However, in the results of the stop pattern stimuli, the participants crossed with higher vehicle approaching speeds when they were presented with the sound of a gasoline combustion vehicle. The model results show that in fact the vehicle speed at the moment of response was significantly higher for gasoline stimuli (m = 13.72 km/h; sd = 4.92 km/h; \(p\) = 0.02) than for electric stimuli (m = 12.85 km/h; sd = 5.51 km/h). Non-significant differences were found between the speeds of the no sound (m = 12.47 km/h; sd = 6.34 km/h; \(p\) = 0.13) and electric condition. As in the case of distance, the vehicle approaching speed at the time of the participants' cross significantly depended on the vehicle speed pattern.