Evaluation of the Total Eyes-off-Road Time Glance Criterion in the NHTSA Visual-Manual Guidelines

NHTSA issued a 12-s total eyes-off-road time (TEORT) glance criterion for its visual-manual guidelines simulator test. This criterion relied on NHTSA’s analysis of manual radio-tuning data from its simulator study using a 2010 Toyota Prius premium radio and its test-track study of five 2005 to 2010 vehicles using various radio-tuning control types. However, this 12-s criterion was biased falsely downward. First, NHTSA oversampled the youngest participants (with the shortest TEORT scores) in the simulator study and oversampled the newest radios (with the shortest TEORT scores) in the test track study. Second, NHTSA incorrectly assumed that track and simulator metrics had a one-to-one correspondence, but the track TEORT was substantially shorter than the simulator TEORT for a matched Prius task with matched older participant ages. Third, NHTSA set its criterion at exactly the 85th percentile of the TEORT data rather than its upper confidence limit; hence, traditional radio-tuning tasks would fail repeated tests simply because of random test-to-test variation. The current study, after adjusting for these and other biases, estimated a criterion of 21.4 s from the identical NHTSA data sets. Emerging knowledge that relies on naturalistic driving studies suggests that cumulative glance metrics such as TEORT have low predictive validity for crashes compared with other metrics. A new test should be developed with metrics of higher predictive validity for relative crash risk on the basis of a growing scientific consensus about the relationship—both positive and negative—between eye glances, relative crash risk, and secondary task performance while driving.

[1]  Xuru Ding,et al.  Road-to-Lab: Validation of the Static Load Test for Predicting On-Road Driving Performance While Using Advanced In-Vehicle Information and Communication Devices , 2017 .

[2]  Richard A Young Need for Revised Total Eyes-Off-Road Criterion in the NHTSA Distraction Guidelines: Track Radio-Tuning Data , 2017 .

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

[4]  Thomas A. Dingus Attentional demand evaluation for an automobile moving-map navigation system , 1987 .

[5]  Annie Rydström,et al.  Repeatability of the NHTSA Visual-Manual Guidelines Assessment Procedure , 2015 .

[6]  Jonathan Dobres,et al.  Effects of an 'Expert Mode' Voice Command System on Task Performance, Glance Behavior & Driver Physiology , 2014, AutomotiveUI.

[7]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  An Evaluation of Alternative Methods for Assessing Driver Workload in the Early Development of In-Vehicle Information Systems , 2002 .

[8]  Bo Svanberg,et al.  An Empirically Based Suggestion for Reformulating the Glance Duration Criteria in NHTSA's Visual-Manual Interaction Guidelines , 2013 .

[9]  Richard A. Young,et al.  Driver Compensation , 2015, Hum. Factors.

[10]  Tuomo Kujala,et al.  Critical Analysis on the NHTSA Acceptance Criteria for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices , 2014, AutomotiveUI.

[11]  Donald Bischoff,et al.  Developing Guidelines for Managing Driver Workload and Distraction Associated with TelematicDevices , 2007 .

[12]  Richard A. Young,et al.  Cell Phone Conversation and Relative Crash Risk , 2015 .

[13]  Li Hsieh,et al.  Validation of the Static Load Test for Event Detection During Hands-Free Conversation , 2017 .

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

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

[16]  Jing Zhang,et al.  Safe Interaction for Drivers: A Review of Driver Distraction Guidelines and Design Implications , 2015 .

[17]  Marco Dozza,et al.  Analysis of Naturalistic Driving Study Data: Safer Glances, Driver Inattention, and Crash Risk , 2014 .

[18]  Richard A. Young,et al.  Self-regulation minimizes crash risk from attentional effects of cognitive load during auditory-vocal tasks , 2014 .

[19]  Richard A. Young Event detection: the second dimension of driver performance for visual-manual tasks , 2012 .

[20]  Justin M. Owens,et al.  Radio Tuning Effects on Visual Test Track and Driving Performance Measures – Simulator and Test Track Studies , 2013 .

[21]  R. Young,et al.  Driver Demand: Eye Glance Measures , 2016 .

[22]  John D. Lee,et al.  How Dangerous Is Looking Away From the Road? Algorithms Predict Crash Risk From Glance Patterns in Naturalistic Driving , 2012, Hum. Factors.

[23]  John Martin,et al.  Distraction Effects of Manual Number and Text Entry While Driving: (563352012-001) , 2011 .