Effects of visual and cognitive load in real and simulated motorway driving

Hibberd

Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies

2015

Whilst driving is inherently a safety critical task, awareness of fuel efficient driving techniques has gained popularity in both the public and commercial domains. Green driving, whether motivated by financial or environmental savings, has the potential to reduce the production of greenhouse gases by a significant amount. This paper focusses on the interaction between the driver and their vehicle -what type of eco driving information is easy to use and learn whilst not compromising safety. A simulator study evaluated both visual and haptic eco driving feedback systems in the context of hill driving. The ability of drivers to accurately follow the advice, as well as their propensity to prioritise it over safe driving was investigated. We found that any type of eco driving advice improved performance and whilst continuous real time visual feedback proved to be the most effective, this modality obviously reduces attention to the forward view and increases subjective workload. On the other hand, the haptic force system had little effect on reported workload, but was less effective that the visual system. A compromise may be a hybrid system that adapts to drivers' performance on an on going basis.

Section: Learning Varies With System Typecontrasting

confidence: 74%

Drivers’ ability to learn eco-driving skills; effects on fuel efficient and safe driving behaviour

Hibberd

Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies

2015

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

“…CL has been shown to have important implications for learning [13], safety in driving [4], aviation [16], and user interface design [10]. Being able to accurately monitor CL in real world environment would have important and far-reaching implications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Stress on Cognitive Load Measurement

Conway

Dick

et al. 2013

Abstract.Human physiological signals have been widely used to non-invasively measure cognitive load (CL) during task execution. A major challenge for CL detection is the presence of stress, which may affect physiological measurements in ways that confound reliable detection of CL. In this experiment we investigated the effect of stress on cognitive load measurement using galvanic skin response (GSR) as a physiological index of CL. The experiment utilized feelings of lack of control, task failure and social-evaluation to induce stress. Mean GSR values were shown to be significantly different between CL levels in the 'no-stress' condition, but not when including the 'stress' condition. On the other hand, features extracted from GSR signals based on peak detection exhibited consistent behaviour under both conditions, demonstrating the usefulness of the features as cognitive load index even when a person's stress level is fluctuating.

“…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).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2008

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).