How does a lower predictability of lane changes affect performance in the Lane Change Task?

The Lane Change Task (LCT) is an established method to assess driver distraction caused by secondary tasks. In the LCT ISO standard, "course following and maneuvering" and "event detection" are mentioned as central task properties. Especially event detection seems to be a reasonable feature, as research suggests that distraction has profound effects on drivers' reactions to sudden, unexpected events. However, closer inspection of the LCT reveals that the events to be detected (lane change signs) and the required response are highly predictable. To investigate how the LCT's distraction assessment of secondary tasks might change if lane change events and responses were less predictable, we implemented three different versions of the LCT - an "original" one, a second one with lowered predictability of event position, and a third one with lowered predictability of event position and response. We tested each of these implementations with the same set of visual and cognitive secondary tasks of varying demand. The results showed that a decrease in predictability resulted in overall degraded performance in the LCT when using the basic lane change model for analysis. However, all secondary task conditions suffered equally. No differential effects were found. We conclude that although an ISO conforming implementation of the LCT might not be excessively valid regarding its depiction of safety relevant events, the results obtained are nevertheless comparable to what would be found in settings of higher validity.

[1]  Gerhard Rinkenauer,et al.  Response preparation in a lane change task , 2013, Ergonomics.

[2]  P A Hancock,et al.  The distraction effects of phone use during a crucial driving maneuver. , 2003, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[3]  John D. Lee,et al.  Driver Distraction : Theory, Effects, and Mitigation , 2008 .

[4]  A Brenck,et al.  Study on the regulatory situation in the member states regarding brought-in (i.e. nomadic devices) and their use in vehicles , 2010 .

[5]  Trent Victor,et al.  Distraction Assessment Methods Based on Visual Behavior and Event Detection , 2009 .

[6]  Timothy L. Brown,et al.  Speech-Based Interaction with In-Vehicle Computers: The Effect of Speech-Based E-Mail on Drivers' Attention to the Roadway , 2001, Hum. Factors.

[7]  Jeff K Caird,et al.  A meta-analysis of the effects of cell phones on driver performance. , 2008, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[8]  Michael G. Lenné,et al.  Utility of the lane change test in exploring the effects on driving performance of engaging in additional in-vehicle tasks while driving , 2010 .

[9]  Kristie Lee Young,et al.  Distraction Assessment Methods Based on Visual Behavior and Event Detection , 2008 .

[10]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Surrogate in-vehicle information systems and driver behaviour: effects of visual and cognitive load in simulated rural driving , 2005 .

[11]  Mark Vollrath,et al.  The effect of visual and cognitive distraction on driver’s anticipation in a simulated car following scenario , 2011 .

[12]  Peter A. Hancock,et al.  The distraction effects of phone use during a crucial driving maneuver. , 2003 .

[13]  Josef F. Krems,et al.  Learning effects in the lane change task (LCT)—Evidence from two experimental studies , 2011 .

[14]  J. Merkel Die zeitlichen Verhältnisse der Willensthätigkeit , 1883 .

[15]  John D Lee,et al.  Combining cognitive and visual distraction: less than the sum of its parts. , 2010, Accident; analysis and prevention.

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

[17]  Jeff Allen Greenberg,et al.  Driver Distraction: Evaluation with Event Detection Paradigm , 2003 .

[18]  Charlene Hallett,et al.  Driver distraction and driver inattention: definition, relationship and taxonomy. , 2011, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[19]  Jeff K. Caird,et al.  Effects of Passenger and Cellular Phone Conversations on Driver Distraction , 2004 .

[20]  H Summala,et al.  Cognitive load and detection thresholds in car following situations: safety implications for using mobile (cellular) telephones while driving. , 1999, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[21]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  Engineering Psychology and Human Performance , 1984 .

[22]  Albert Kircher,et al.  Using mobile telephones: cognitive workload and attention resource allocation. , 2004, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[23]  W. E. Hick Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 1948, Nature.

[24]  Heikki Summala,et al.  DETECTION THRESHOLDS IN CAR FOLLOWING SITUATIONS AND PERIPHERAL VISION: IMPLICATIONS FOR POSITIONING OF VISUALLY DEMANDING IN-CAR DISPLAYS , 1999 .

[25]  Kenneth R. Boff,et al.  Engineering data compendium : human perception and performance , 1988 .

[26]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  Lane Change Test: Preliminary Results of a Multi-Laboratory Calibration Study , 2010 .

[27]  R. Hyman Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[28]  Gary L. Rupp,et al.  Performance Metrics for Assessing Driver Distraction: The Quest for Improved Road Safety , 2011 .

[29]  H Alm,et al.  The effects of a mobile telephone task on driver behaviour in a car following situation. , 1995, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[30]  Kenneth R. Boff,et al.  Engineering data compendium. Human perception and performance. User's guide , 1988 .

[31]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Driver Distraction From a Control Theory Perspective , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[32]  Simone Benedetto,et al.  Measuring the effects of visual demand on lateral deviation: a comparison among driver's performance indicators. , 2012, Applied ergonomics.

[33]  Marc Green,et al.  "How Long Does It Take to Stop?" Methodological Analysis of Driver Perception-Brake Times , 2000 .