Cognitive workload and driving behavior in persons with hearing loss

Thorslund, Birgitta; Peters, Björn; Lidestam, Björn; Lyxell, Björn

doi:10.1016/j.trf.2013.09.011

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With previous assumptions that driving is mostly a visual task [17], that deaf people have enhanced peripheral vision [14], and that drivers with HL show more cautious driving behavior [13], it is interesting that drivers with HL show worse driving performance during distraction than drivers with NH [1]. The purpose of the present study is to compare visual behavior in older adults with and without HL during normal driving and driving while performing a secondary task.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…There was also a parked car event in which the drivers had to brake. Analysis of the data surrounding these events as well as driving performance is presented in a separate paper [13] and thus excluded here.…”

Section: Simulator Scenario and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to this rather broad research question, three main assumptions were tested: First, as a natural effect of divided attention, we expected to see in both groups an effect on all areas during the task, an increased number of glances at the secondary task display, and a decreased number of glances towards the other zones. Second, with the knowledge of their more cautious driving behavior [13], we assumed that participants with HL would be generally less willing to take their eyes off the road, in terms of both number and duration of glances. We expected fewer and shorter glances away from the forward roadway in the HL group than in the NH group.…”

Section: Design and Expectationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whether this suggestion is correct or not, Magnet [12] indicated that when compared with drivers with NH, drivers with HL do not use compensatory eye movements. Thorslund et al [13] demonstrated that increased driving complexity affects drivers with HL more than those with NH, and that as driving complexity increases, drivers with HL show more cautious driving behavior, with lower driving speeds and higher disregard of any secondary tasks. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether the visual behavior of drivers with HL differs from drivers with NH, both during normal driving and while performing a distracting secondary task.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Cognitive workload and visual behavior in elderly drivers with hearing loss

Thorslund

Ahlström

Peters

et al. 2014

Eur. Transp. Res. Rev.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To examine eye tracking data and compare visual behavior in individuals with normal hearing (NH) and with moderate hearing loss (HL) during two types of driving conditions: normal driving and driving while performing a secondary task. Methods 24 participants with HL and 24 with NH were exposed to normal driving and to driving with a secondary task (observation and recall of 4 visually displayed letters). Eye movement behavior was assessed during normal driving by the following performance indicators: number of glances away from the road; mean duration of glances away from the road; maximum duration of glances away from the road; and percentage of time looking at the road. During driving with the secondary task, eye movement data were assessed in terms of number of glances to the secondary task display, mean duration of glances to the secondary task display, and maximum duration of glances to the secondary task display. The secondary task performance was assessed as well, counting the number of correct letters, the number of skipped letters, and the number of correct letters ignoring order. Results While driving with the secondary task, drivers with HL looked twice as often in the rear-view mirror than during normal driving and twice as often as drivers with NH regardless of condition. During secondary task, the HL group looked away from the road more frequently but for shorter durations than the NH group. Drivers with HL had fewer correct letters and more skipped letters than drivers with NH.Conclusions Differences in visual behavior between drivers with NH and with HL are bound to the driving condition. Driving with a secondary task, drivers with HL spend as much time looking away from the road as drivers with NH, however with more frequent and shorter glances away. Secondary task performance is lower for the HL group, suggesting this group is less willing to perform this task. The results also indicate that drivers with HL use fewer but more focused glances away than drivers with NH, they also perform a visual scan of the surrounding traffic environment before looking away towards the secondary task display.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Simulator Scenario and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Design and Expectationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cognitive workload and visual behavior in elderly drivers with hearing loss

Thorslund

Ahlström

Peters

et al. 2014

Eur. Transp. Res. Rev.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, those who have issues with multitasking may well adapt their behaviour and withdraw from the auditory task in order to increase their road safety. Indeed, Thorslund et al (2013a;2013b;2014) have repeatedly observed, what they argue, is an adaptive driving style in their hearing impaired participants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

The effect of auditory distraction on the useful field of view in hearing impaired individuals and its implications for driving

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study assessed whether the increased demand of listening in hearing impaired individuals exacerbates the detrimental impact of auditory distraction on a visual task (Useful Field of View test), relative to normally hearing listeners. Auditory distraction negatively affects this visual task, which is linked with various driving performance outcomes. Mildlyseverely hearing impaired and normally hearing participants performed Useful Field of View testing with and without a simultaneous listening task. They also undertook a cognitive test battery. For all participants, performing the visual and auditory tasks together reduced performance on each respective test. For a number of subtests, hearing impaired participants showed poorer visual task performance, though not to a statistically significant extent. Hearing impaired participants were significantly poorer at a reading span task than normally hearing participants, and tended to score lower on the most visually complex subtest of the visual task in the absence of auditory task engagement. Useful Field of View performance is negatively affected by auditory distraction, and hearing loss may present further problems, given the reductions in visual and cognitive task performance suggested in this study. Suggestions are made for future work to extend this study, given the practical importance of the findings.

show abstract