Measuring driver distraction - Evaluation of the box task method as a tool for assessing in-vehicle system demand.

Several tools have been developed over the past twenty years to assess the degree of driver distraction caused by secondary task engagement. A relatively new and promising method in this area is the box task combined with a detection response task (BT + DRT). However, no evaluation regarding the BT's sensitivity currently exists. Thus, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the BT + DRT by comparing its sensitivity to the sensitivity of already established methods. Twenty-nine participants engaged in several artificial and realistic secondary tasks while either performing the BT + DRT, the Lane Change Test (LCT), or driving through a simple course in a simulator. The results showed that the BT parameters (especially the standard deviation of box position and size) were sensitive to differences in demand across the visual-manual secondary tasks. This was comparable to what was found with the LCT. Surprisingly, the BT performance measures were more sensitive than those of the driving simulation task. The BT + DRT also captured cognitive distraction effects with the integration of the DRT. Hence, the BT + DRT could be a cost-effective method to assess in-vehicle system demand. However, further investigations are necessary to better understand the potential of the BT method.

[1]  Jason S. McCarley,et al.  Effects of Cognitive Distraction on Lane-keeping , 2011 .

[2]  Jeff K. Caird,et al.  Does Talking on a Cell Phone, With a Passenger, or Dialing Affect Driving Performance? An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies , 2018, Hum. Factors.

[3]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  Evaluation of in-vehicle HMI using occlusion techniques: experimental results and practical implications. , 2004, Applied ergonomics.

[4]  Johan Engström,et al.  Sensitivity of eye-movement measures to in-vehicle task difficulty , 2005 .

[5]  Tibor Petzoldt,et al.  How does a lower predictability of lane changes affect performance in the Lane Change Task? , 2014, Applied ergonomics.

[6]  David L. Strayer,et al.  Is the Technology in Your Car Driving You to Distraction? , 2015 .

[7]  Michael G. Lenné,et al.  Sensitivity of the lane change test as a measure of in-vehicle system demand. , 2011, Applied ergonomics.

[8]  D. Broadbent,et al.  From detection to identification: Response to multiple targets in rapid serial visual presentation , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  Jaka Sodnik,et al.  Sensitivity evaluation of the visual, tactile, and auditory detection response task method while driving , 2017, Traffic injury prevention.

[10]  Marie-Pierre Bruyas,et al.  Sensitivity of detection response task (DRT) to driving demand and task difficulty , 2017 .

[11]  L Parmer Tijerina.  DRIVER WORKLOAD ASSESSMENT OF ROUTE GUIDANCE SYSTEM DESTINATION ENTRY WHILE DRIVING: A TEST TRACK STUDY , 1998 .

[12]  Jeff K Caird,et al.  Safety-critical event risk associated with cell phone tasks as measured in naturalistic driving studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2016, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[13]  John W. Senders,et al.  THE ATTENTIONAL DEMAND OF AUTOMOBILE DRIVING , 1967 .

[14]  Peter Bengtsson,et al.  Individual glance strategies and their effect on the NHTSA visual manual distraction test , 2016 .

[15]  F.R.H. Zijlstra,et al.  Efficiency in work behaviour: A design approach for modern tools , 1993 .

[16]  Gary Burnett,et al.  How do you assess the distraction of in-vehicle information systems?: a comparison of occlusion, lane change task and medium-fidelity driving simulator methods , 2013 .

[17]  Corinne Brusque,et al.  Consistency and sensitivity of lane change test according to driving simulator characteristics , 2008 .

[18]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Effects of Cognitive Load on Driving Performance: The Cognitive Control Hypothesis , 2017, Hum. Factors.

[19]  Jaka Sodnik,et al.  Detection-Response Task—Uses and Limitations , 2018, Sensors.

[20]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  Evaluation of a Radio Tuning Task on Android while Driving , 2015 .

[21]  J. Engström.  Effects of Visual and Cognitive Distraction on Lane Change Test Performance , 2017 .

[22]  Elizabeth N. Mazzae,et al.  Measuring Distraction Potential of Operating In-Vehicle Devices , 2009 .

[23]  Sofia Lindvall,et al.  Assessing In-Vehicle Secondary Tasks with the NHTSA Visual-Manual Guidelines Occlusion Method , 2017 .

[24]  Li Hsieh,et al.  The Tactile Detection Response Task: Preliminary Validation for Measuring the Attentional Effects of Cognitive Load , 2017 .

[25]  Christhard Gelau,et al.  The occlusion technique: a procedure to assess the HMI of in-vehicle information and communication systems. , 2004, Applied ergonomics.

[26]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  OCCLUSION AS A TECHNIQUE FOR EVALUATING IN-CAR DISPLAYS. IN: ENGINEERING PSYCHOLOGY AND COGNITIVE ERGONOMICS. AEROSPACE AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS , 2001 .

[27]  Stefan Mattes,et al.  Surrogate Distraction Measurement Techniques: The Lane Change Test , 2009 .

[28]  Michael E Rakauskas,et al.  Effects of naturalistic cell phone conversations on driving performance. , 2004, Journal of safety research.

[29]  John Martin,et al.  Distraction Effects of Manual Number and Text Entry While Driving - Part 1 , 2013 .

[30]  Li Hsieh,et al.  The dimensional model of driver demand: visual-manual tasks , 2016 .

[31]  William J Horrey,et al.  Visual and Cognitive Demands of CarPlay, Android Auto, and Five Native Infotainment Systems , 2019, Hum. Factors.

[32]  Georg Jahn,et al.  Peripheral detection as a workload measure in driving: Effects of traffic complexity and route guidance system use in a driving study , 2005 .

[33]  David L. Strayer,et al.  Measuring Cognitive Distraction in the Automobile , 2013 .