A cognitive constraint model of dual-task trade-offs in a highly dynamic driving task

The paper describes an approach to modeling the strategic variations in performing secondary tasks while driving. In contrast to previous efforts that are based on simulation of a cognitive architecture interacting with a task environment, we take an approach that develops a cognitive constraint model of the interaction between the driver and the task environment in order to make inferences about dual-task performance. Analyses of driving performance data reveal that a set of simple equations can be used to accurately model changes in the lateral position of the vehicle within the lane. The model quantifies how the vehicle's deviation from lane center increases during periods of inattention, and how the vehicle returns to lane center during periods of active steering. We demonstrate the benefits of the approach by modeling the dialing of a cellular phone while driving, where drivers balance the speed in performing the dial task with accuracy (or safety) in keeping the vehicle centered in the roadway. In particular, we show how understanding, rather than simulating, the constraints imposed by the task environment can help to explain the costs and benefits of a range of strategies for interleaving dialing and steering. We show how particular strategies are sensitive to a combination of internal constraints (including switch costs) and the trade-off between the amount of time allocated to secondary task and the risk of extreme lane deviation.

[1]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Information-Requirements Grammar: A Theory of the Structure of Competence for Interaction , 2005 .

[2]  J. Driver,et al.  Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII , 2000 .

[3]  D. Kieras,et al.  Modern computational perspectives on executive mental processes and cognitive control: Where to from here? , 2000 .

[4]  Dario D. Salvucci Predicting the effects of in-car interface use on driver performance: an integrated model approach , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[5]  D E Kieras,et al.  A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. , 1997, Psychological review.

[6]  Duncan P. Brumby,et al.  Exploring Human Multitasking Strategies from a Cognitive Constraint Approach , 2006 .

[7]  Kristen L. Macuga,et al.  Predicting the effects of cellular-phone dialing on driver performance , 2002, Cognitive Systems Research.

[8]  Guy Wallis,et al.  An Unexpected Role for Visual Feedback in Vehicle Steering Control , 2002, Current Biology.

[9]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Generating automated predictions of behavior strategically adapted to specific performance objectives , 2006, CHI.

[10]  Frank E. Ritter,et al.  The Rise of Cognitive Architectures , 2007, Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems.

[11]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Cognitive Constraint Modeling: A Formal Approach to Supporting Reasoning About Behavior , 2004 .

[12]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Bounding Rational Analysis: Constraints on Asymptotic Performance , 2007, Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems.

[13]  D. Kieras,et al.  The role of cognitive task analysis in the application of predictive models of human performance , 1998 .

[14]  Yili Liu,et al.  Modeling Steering Using the Queueing Network — Model Human Processor (QN-MHP) , 2003 .

[15]  Dario D. Salvucci Modeling Driver Behavior in a Cognitive Architecture , 2006, Hum. Factors.

[16]  Valdimar Briem,et al.  Behavioural effects of mobile telephone use during simulated driving. , 1995 .

[17]  Dario D. Salvucci A Multitasking General Executive for Compound Continuous Tasks , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[18]  Duncan P. Brumby,et al.  iPod distraction: effects of portable music-player use on driver performance , 2007, CHI.

[19]  Constance S. Royden,et al.  From vision to action: experiments and models of steering control during driving. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  John R Anderson,et al.  An integrated theory of the mind. , 2004, Psychological review.

[21]  H Pashler,et al.  How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. , 2000, Psychological review.