driver distraction: a view from the simulator frank drews & david strayer

Post on 17-Jan-2018

218 Views

Category:

Documents

0 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

DESCRIPTION

Research Questions  Does conversing on a cell phone interfere with driving?  What are the sources of the interference?  Peripheral interference (dialing, holding the phone)  Attentional interference (cell phone conversation)  Who is affected?  Are there age / expertise effects?  How much are drivers affected?  How significant is the interference?  How do other cell phone activities compare?  How do other types of conversation compare?

TRANSCRIPT

Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator

Frank Drews & David Strayer

Distracted Driving and Multi-tasking...

Research Questions

Does conversing on a cell phone interfere with driving? What are the sources of the interference?

Peripheral interference (dialing, holding the phone) Attentional interference (cell phone conversation)

Who is affected? Are there age / expertise effects?

How much are drivers affected? How significant is the interference? How do other cell phone activities compare? How do other types of conversation compare?

Simulator-Based Studies

Does conversing on a cell phone interfere with driving (Experiment 1)

Car-following paradigm Follow periodically braking pace car Required timely and appropriate reactions Hands-free cell phone (positioned in advance) Naturalistic conversations

Conditions Single vs. dual-task Low vs. moderate density *

Measures Reaction time Following distance Rear-end collisions

Low

Mod.

Single Dual

Reaction Time

800850900950

1000105011001150

Low Density Moderate Density

Reac

tion

Tim

e

SingleDual

Following Distance

2021222324252627282930

Low Density Moderate Density

Follo

win

g D

ista

nce (

Met

ers)

SingleDual

Rear-end Collisions

0

1

2

3

Low Density Moderate Density

Rea

r-end

Col

lisio

ns

SingleDual

Summary (Experiment 1)

Cell-phone driver’s Slower reaction times Drivers compensate by increasing following distance Increase in rear-end accidents

Cell-phone interference Naturalistic conversations

Why Do Cell Phones Cause Interference?

From earlier studies, no interference from: Radio broadcasts (audio input) Books on tape & recorded conversations (audio/verbal input) Simple shadowing (audio/verbal input, verbal output)

Implies active engagement in conversation necessary Impairments from both hand-held and hands-free units

Implies central / cognitive locus Inattention-blindness (Neisser, Simons)

Inattention-Blindness (Experiment 2)

Is there cell-phone induced inattention blindness?

Hands-free cell phone Naturalistic conversation with confederate Eye tracker

Two phases to the study: Phase 1: Single & dual-task driving Phase 2: Recognition memory tests for

objects encountered while driving

Recognition Memory Given Fixation

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Single-Task Dual-Task

Cond

ition

al R

ecog

nitio

n Pr

obab

ility

Summary (Experiment 2)

Cell phone conversations create inattention blindness for traffic related events/scenes

Cell phone drivers look but fail to see up to half of the information in the driving environment

No evidence that cell phone drivers protect more traffic relevant information

Are there age / experience effects? (Experiment 3)

Car-following paradigm Follow periodically braking pace car Required timely and appropriate reactions Hands-free cell phone (positioned in advance) Naturalistic conversations

Performance Measures Reaction time Recovery time Driving speed Following distance

Younger Adults

Older Adults

Single Dual

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

Younger Older

Reac

tion

Tim

e

SingleDual

Brake Reaction Time

Summary (Experiment 3)

Main effect of single vs. dual-task: Reaction time Following distance

Main effect of age: Slower reactions Slower driving speed Greater following distance

No Age x Task interaction

How Significant is the Interference?The drunk driver (Experiment 4)

Cell-phone vs. drunk-driver Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997) suggested that “the relative risk

[of being in a traffic accident while using a cell-phone] is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit” (p. 465).

Cell-phone Driver vs. Drunk Driver

Car-following paradigm Follow periodically braking pace car Required timely and appropriate reactions

Conditions Single-task driving Cell-phone driving * Intoxicated driving (BAC= 0.08 wt/vol)

* Hands-free = Hand-held

Reaction Time

700750800850900950

10001050

Intoxicated Driving Cell-Phone Driving

Reac

tion

Tim

e

Following Distance

25.025.526.026.527.027.528.028.529.0

Intoxicated Driving Cell-Phone Driving

Follo

win

g D

ista

nce (

met

ers)

Rear-end Collisions

0

1

2

3

4

Intoxicated Driving Cell-Phone Driving

Rear

-end

Col

lisio

ns

Summary (Experiment 4)

Compared to drunk drivers, cell-phone drivers React slower Increase following distance Compensate by increasing following distance But: Still more rear-end accidents

When controlling for time on task and driving conditions, cell-phone drivers’ performance is worse than that of the drunk driver

Other cell phone related activities: Text messaging (Experiment 5)

Car-following paradigm Follow periodically braking pace car Required timely and appropriate reactions 20 friend dyads

Conditions Single vs. dual-task

Measures Reaction time Following distance Minimum following distance Rear-end collisions

Single Dual

Reaction Time

700750800850900950

100010501100

single task dual task

Reac

tion

Tim

e

Following Distance

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.0

single task dual task

Follo

win

g Dist

ance

(met

ers)

mean min mean min

Rear-end Collisions

01234567

single task dual task

Rear

-end

Col

lisio

ns

Test messaging drivers Slower reaction times Increased following distance But: smaller minimum distance Increase in rear-end accidents

Things can be worse: Text messaging exceeds cell phone conversations in accident risk

Summary (Experiment 5)

Other types of conversations: Cell Phone vs. Passenger Conversations (Experiment 6)

Conditions Single task / dual task Conversing on cell phone Conversing with passenger

Design Task (2) x Condition (2)

Cell

Passenger

Single Dual

Free driving paradigm 8 miles of highway Exit highway at rest area Hands-free cell phone Close call stories / friends

Performance Measures Lane keeping Navigation task Traffic references

Cell Phone vs. Passenger Conversations

Lane Keeping Errors

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Single-Task Passenger Cell Phone

RMS

Erro

r

Successful Navigation

0

20

40

60

80

100

Single-Task Passenger Cell Phone

% C

orre

ct Ex

it

Traffic References

0

1

2

3

4

Passenger Cell Phone

Num

ber o

f Ref

eren

ces

Summary (Experiment 6)

Cell-phone conversations More lane keeping errors More navigation errors Fewer references to traffic

Passenger conversations Collaborative problem solving Shared situation awareness Passenger actively supports the driver

The answers

Does conversing on a cell phone interfere with driving? Yes

What are the sources of the interference? Peripheral interference (dialing) Attentional interference (inattention blindness)

Who is affected? Younger and older drivers equally affected

How significant is the interference? Worse than listening to radio/books on tape Worse than in-vehicle conversations Worse than driving while legally intoxicated BUT: Less significant than text messaging

top related