Driver distraction: The effects of concurrent in-vehicle tasks, road environment complexity and age on driving performance

Horberry, Tim; Anderson, Janet; Regan, Michael; Triggs, Thomas J; Brown, John M.

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2005.09.007

Cited by 557 publications

(281 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

263

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Many NDRTs in an automated driving scenario, such as texting with a cell phone, using a navigation system, or a media system menu require visual-manual input (Horberry, Anderson, Regan, Triggs, & Brown, 2006). To simulate such an NDRT, the authors chose Surrogate Reference Task (SuRT), a visual-manual task standardized in ISO 14198 (2012) in the difficulty level hard.…”

Section: Non-driving-related Task Surrogate Reference Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trust in automation is a key determinant for the adoption of automated systems and their appropriate use. Therefore, it constitutes an essential research area for the introduction of automated vehicles to road traffic. In this study, we investigated the influence of trust promoting (Trust promoted group) and trust lowering (Trust lowered group) introductory information on reported trust, reliance behavior and takeover performance. Forty participants encountered three situations in a 17-minute highway drive in a conditionally automated vehicle (SAE Level 3). Situation 1 and Situation 3 were non-critical situations where a take-over was optional. Situation 2 represented a critical situation where a take-over was necessary to avoid a collision. A non-driving-related task (NDRT) was presented between the situations to record the allocation of visual attention. Participants reporting a higher trust level spent less time looking at the road or instrument cluster and more time looking at the NDRT. The manipulation of introductory information resulted in medium differences in reported trust and influenced participants' reliance behavior. Participants of the Trust promoted group looked less at the road or instrument cluster and more at the NDRT. The odds of participants of the Trust promoted group to overrule the automated driving system in the non-critical situations were 3.65 times (Situation 1) to 5 times (Situation 3) higher. In Situation 2, the Trust promoted group's mean take-over time was extended by 1154 ms and the mean minimum time-to-collision was 933 ms shorter. Six participants from the Trust promoted group compared to no participant of the Trust lowered group collided with the obstacle. The results demonstrate that the individual trust level influences how much drivers monitor the environment while performing an NDRT. Introductory information influences this trust level, reliance on an automated driving system, and if a critical take-over situation can be successfully solved.

show abstract

Section: Non-driving-related Task Surrogate Reference Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The motivation for such legislation may initially have been concern about interference caused by holding and dialing a cellular phone, and early studies suggested that the manual aspects of cellular phone use were the critical determinant of a decrement in driving performance (Drory, 1985). However, recent behavioral studies have shown that simulated driving performance is also disrupted by conversations using hands-free devices Nilsson, 1994, 1995;Anttila and Luoma 2005;Beede and Kass, 2006;Brookhuis et al, 1991;Consiglio et al, 2003;Horberry et al, 2006;Hunton and Rose, 2005;Jamson and Merat 2005;Lamble et al, 1999;Levy et al, 2006;Liu and Lee, 2005;Matthews et al, 2003;Patten et al, 2004;Ranney et al, 2005;Shinar et al, 2005;Strayer and Drews, 2004;Strayer et al, 2003Strayer et al, , 2006Strayer and Johnston, 2001;Bolling, 2005, 2006;Treffner and Barrett, 2004), and epidemiological studies of real-world accidents suggest that users of hands-free phones are just as likely to have an accident as users of hand-held devices (Redelmeier and Tibshirani, 1997;McEvoy et al, 2005). In their meta-analysis of recent dual-task driving studies, Horey and Wickens (2006) concluded that the costs to driving performance resulting from a secondary simulated conversation task were equivalent for hand-held and hands-free devices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, multitasking of driving and conversing on a cell phone is technologically available, but intuitively seems dangerous in some circumstances. Although driving becomes sufficiently cognitively automated (Schneider, 1999) to permit experienced drivers to perform other tasks at the same time, such as carrying on a conversation, a large number of behavioral studies have now shown that performing another cognitive task while driving an actual or virtual car substantially degrades driving performance Nilsson, 1994, 1995;Anttila and Luoma, 2005;Beede and Kass, 2006;Brookhuis et al, 1991;Consiglio et al, 2003;Drory, 1985;Engström et al, 2005;Haigney et al, 2000;Hancock et al, 2003;Horberry et al, 2006;Horrey and Wickens, 2004;Hunton and Rose, 2005;Jamson and Merat, 2005;Kubose et al, 2006;Lamble et al, 1999;Lesch and Hancock, 2004;Liu and Lee, 2005;Matthews et al, 2003;McKnight and McKnight, 1993;Patten et al, 2004;Ranney et al, 2005; Nunes, 2000, 2003;Santos et al, 2005;Shinar et al, 2005; Drews, 2004, 2007;Strayer et al, 2003Strayer et al, , 2006Strayer and Johnston, 2001; Bolling, 2005, 2006;Treffner and Barrett, 2004). Although some of these studies show that some aspects of driving are unaffected by a secondary task (e.g., Haigney et al, 2000) and in some cases certain aspects improve (e.g., Brookhuis et al, 1991;Engström et al, 2005), a recent meta-analysis of the literature suggests a large overall decrement in driving performance when a secondary task is added (Horey and Wickens, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A decrease in brain activation associated with driving when listening to someone speak

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioral studies have shown that engaging in a secondary task, such as talking on a cellular telephone, disrupts driving performance. This study used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate the impact of concurrent auditory language comprehension on the brain activity associated with a simulated driving task. Participants steered a vehicle along a curving virtual road, either undisturbed or while listening to spoken sentences that they judged as true or false. The dual-task condition produced a significant deterioration in driving accuracy caused by the processing of the auditory sentences. At the same time, the parietal lobe activation associated with spatial processing in the undisturbed driving task decreased by 37% when participants concurrently listened to sentences. The findings show that language comprehension performed concurrently with driving draws mental resources away from the driving and produces deterioration in driving performance, even when it does not require holding or dialing a phone. IntroductionAn enduring question about the human mind concerns the ability to do two things at the same time. As technological and informational capabilities of our environment increase, the number of available information streams increases, and hence the opportunities for complex multitasking increase. In particular, multitasking of driving and conversing on a cell phone is technologically available, but intuitively seems dangerous in some circumstances. Although driving becomes sufficiently cognitively automated (Schneider, 1999) to permit experienced drivers to perform other tasks at the same time, such as carrying on a conversation, a large number of behavioral studies have now shown that performing another cognitive task while driving an actual or virtual car substantially degrades driving performance Nilsson, 1994, 1995;Anttila and Luoma, 2005;Beede and Kass, 2006;Brookhuis et al., 1991;Consiglio et al., 2003;Drory, 1985;Engström et al., 2005;Haigney et al., 2000;Hancock et al., 2003;Horberry et al., 2006;Horrey and Wickens, 2004;Hunton and Rose, 2005;Jamson and Merat, 2005;Kubose et al., 2006;Lamble et al., 1999;Lesch and Hancock, 2004;Liu and Lee, 2005;Matthews et al., 2003;McKnight and McKnight, 1993;Patten et al., 2004;Ranney et al., 2005; Nunes, 2000, 2003;Santos et al., 2005;Shinar et al., 2005; Drews, 2004, 2007;Strayer et al., 2003Strayer et al., , 2006Strayer and Johnston, 2001; Bolling, 2005, 2006;Treffner and Barrett, 2004). Although some of these studies show that some aspects of driving are unaffected by a secondary task (e.g., Haigney et al., 2000) and in some cases certain aspects improve (e.g., Brookhuis et al., 1991;Engström et al., 2005), a recent meta-analysis of the literature suggests a large overall decrement in driving performance when a secondary task is added (Horey and Wickens, 2006).

show abstract

“…An overall workload score from 0 to 100 was calculated based on the subjective weights given. The NASA-TLX has been used in many studies investigating the perceived workload of automobile drivers, including older adult drivers, under various driving conditions [46][47][48] and used in a study evaluating shared user and autonomous driving control of an intelligent wheelchair with users without disabilities [49].…”

Section: Nasa-task Load Indexmentioning

confidence: 99%

Usability testing of multimodal feedback interface and simulated collision-avoidance power wheelchair for long-term-care home residents with cognitive impairments

Wang¹,

Mihailidis²,

Dutta³

et al. 2011

JRRD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Many older adults in long-term-care homes have complex physical and cognitive impairments and have difficulty propelling manual wheelchairs. Power wheelchair use is restricted owing to safety concerns. Power wheelchairs with collisionavoidance features are being developed to enable safe and independent mobility; however, a paucity of information exists on interface features to help users navigate away from obstacles. We developed a system combining an interface with auditory, visual, and haptic feedback and a simulated collision-avoidance power wheelchair. This device allowed the investigator to stop movement of the power wheelchair when users approached obstacles and to deliver feedback to help them navigate. Five long-termcare home residents with mild or moderate cognitive impairments evaluated device usability, which included effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction. Each resident used the device for six 1 h sessions. Observations, feedback interviews, and outcome questionnaires were completed during and after the sessions. We found the device effective in enabling residents to achieve basic driving tasks and self-identified indoor mobility goals. Furthermore, residents perceived workload to be low and were satisfied with the device. Residents also felt that the feedback was useful to help them navigate away from obstacles.

show abstract

Driver distraction: The effects of concurrent in-vehicle tasks, road environment complexity and age on driving performance

Cited by 557 publications

References 7 publications

Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving

Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving

A decrease in brain activation associated with driving when listening to someone speak

Usability testing of multimodal feedback interface and simulated collision-avoidance power wheelchair for long-term-care home residents with cognitive impairments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About