The dimensional model of driver demand: visual-manual tasks

Many metrics have been used in an attempt to predict the effects of secondary tasks on driving behavior. Such metrics often give rise to seemingly paradoxical results, with one metric suggesting increased demand and another metric suggesting decreased demand for the same task. For example, for some tasks, drivers maintain their lane well yet detect events relatively poorly. For other tasks, drivers maintain their lane relatively poorly yet detect events relatively well. These seeming paradoxes are not time-accuracy trade-offs or experimental artifacts, because for other tasks, drivers do both well. The paradoxes are resolved if driver demand is modeled in two orthogonal dimensions rather than a single "driver workload" dimension. Principal components analysis (PCA) was applied to the published data from four simulator, track, and open road studies of visual-manual secondary task effects on driving. PCA reduced the task metrics to two underlying orthogonal components (hereafter, dimensions) which were consistent across studies, herein designated as physical and cognitive demand. Physical demand is associated with lateral and longitudinal driver performance (lane crossings, standard deviation of lateral position and speed), with correlated surrogate metrics of task time, step count, total glance time, number of glances, and subjective workload. Cognitive demand is associated with event detection (RT and miss rate), with correlated surrogate metrics of mean single glance time, long single glances, speed reduction, and task errors. The Dimensional Model of Driver Demand allows for a common simplified understanding of all these measures of visual-manual secondary task effects on driver performance. Language: en

[1]  C D Wickens,et al.  The effects of divided attention on information processing in manual tracking. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[3]  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.

[4]  Louis Tijerina,et al.  Driver Workload Metrics Task 2 Final Report , 2006 .

[5]  Linda Angell.  Effects of Secondary Task Demands on Drivers’ Responses to Events During Driving: Surrogate Methods and Issues , 2017 .

[6]  David E. Irwin,et al.  The dynamics of cognition and action: mental processes inferred from speed-accuracy decomposition. , 1988, Psychological review.

[7]  Omer Tsimhoni,et al.  Visual Demand of Driving and the Execution of Display-Intensive in-Vehicle Tasks , 2001 .

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

[9]  M. Posner,et al.  The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after. , 2012, Annual review of neuroscience.

[10]  Ronald M. Lesperance,et al.  The Gaussian derivative model for spatial-temporal vision: II. Cortical data. , 2001, Spatial vision.

[11]  Yulan Liang,et al.  Detecting driver distraction , 2009 .

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

[13]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Multiple Resources and Mental Workload , 2008, Hum. Factors.

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

[15]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  Visual Attentional Demand of An In-car Navigation Display System , 1988 .

[16]  Heikki Summala,et al.  Driving experience and time-sharing during in-car tasks on roads of different width , 1998 .

[17]  D. Regan,et al.  Looming detectors in the human visual pathway , 1978, Vision Research.

[18]  Jin Fan,et al.  Testing the behavioral interaction and integration of attentional networks , 2009, Brain and Cognition.

[19]  Paul Green,et al.  Estimating Compliance with the 15-Second Rule for Driver-Interface Usability and Safety , 1999 .

[20]  Peter Burns,et al.  The importance of task duration and related measures in assessing the distraction potential of in-vehicle tasks , 2010, AutomotiveUI.

[21]  N Moray,et al.  Where is capacity limited? A survey and a model. , 1967, Acta psychologica.

[22]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Attention and Effort , 1973 .

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

[24]  Javier Roca,et al.  Attentional Networks Functioning, Age, and Attentional Lapses While Driving , 2011, Traffic injury prevention.

[25]  R. Young.  Drowsy driving increases severity of safety-critical events and is decreased by cell phone conversation , 2013 .

[26]  J. E. Jackson.  A User's Guide to Principal Components , 1991 .

[27]  Li Hsieh,et al.  Conversation effects on neural mechanisms underlying reaction time to visual events while viewing a driving scene using MEG , 2009, Brain Research.

[28]  Paul Green,et al.  Task time and glance measures of the use of telematics: a tabular summary of the literature , 2004 .

[29]  R. A. Young,et al.  Principal-component analysis of macaque lateral geniculate nucleus chromatic data. , 1986, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[30]  James P. Foley.  Lessons learned from the development of J2364 , 2005 .

[31]  Paul Green,et al.  THE 15-SECOND RULE FOR DRIVER INFORMATION SYSTEMS , 1999 .

[32]  Tatsuya Iwasa,et al.  Study of Reproducibility of Pedal Tracking and Detection Response Task to Assess Driver Distraction , 2015 .

[33]  Joshua E. Domeyer,et al.  Towards Operationalizing Driver Distraction , 2017 .

[34]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  Attentional demand requirements of an automobile moving-map navigation system , 1989 .

[35]  Bruce D. McCandliss,et al.  Testing the Efficiency and Independence of Attentional Networks , 2002, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[36]  William Ribarsky,et al.  iPCA: An Interactive System for PCA‐based Visual Analytics , 2009, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[37]  M. Posner.  Chronometric explorations of mind : the third Paul M. Fitts lectures, delivered at the University of Michigan, September 1976 , 1978 .

[38]  Natasha Merat,et al.  The Effect of Stimulus Modality on Signal Detection: Implications for Assessing the Safety of In-Vehicle Technology , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[39]  Juan Lupiáñez,et al.  The three attentional networks: On their independence and interactions , 2004, Brain and Cognition.

[40]  Li Hsieh,et al.  Conversation effects on neural mechanisms underlying reaction time to visual events while viewing a driving scene: fMRI analysis and asynchrony model , 2009, Brain Research.

[41]  Paul Green.  VISUAL AND TASK DEMANDS OF DRIVER INFORMATION SYSTEMS , 1999 .

[42]  H. Kaiser.  An index of factorial simplicity , 1974 .

[43]  Charles Spence,et al.  The Multisensory Driver: Implications for Ergonomic Car Interface Design , 2012 .

[44]  C Spence,et al.  Multisensory interface design for drivers: past, present and future , 2008, Ergonomics.

[45]  Richard A Young.  Evaluation of the Total Eyes-off-Road Time Glance Criterion in the NHTSA Visual-Manual Guidelines , 2016 .

[46]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data , 2006 .

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

[48]  David E. Irwin,et al.  Modern mental chronometry , 1988, Biological Psychology.

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

[50]  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 .

[51]  Richard Young,et al.  Revised Odds Ratio Estimates of Secondary Tasks: A Re-Analysis of the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data , 2015 .

[52]  P. R. Davidson,et al.  Frequent lapses of responsiveness during an extended visuomotor tracking task in non‐sleep‐deprived subjects , 2006, Journal of sleep research.

[53]  Karl Pearson F.R.S..  LIII. On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space , 1901 .

[54]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  The Relative Risks of Secondary Task Induced Driver Distraction , 2008 .

[55]  M. Posner,et al.  Timing the Brain: Mental Chronometry as a Tool in Neuroscience , 2005, PLoS biology.

[56]  Candida Castro,et al.  Are drivers' attentional lapses associated with the functioning of the neurocognitive attentional networks and with cognitive failure in everyday life? , 2013 .

[57]  A. Welford.  Single-channel operation in the brain. , 1967, Acta psychologica.

[58]  Louis Tijerina,et al.  Preliminary Evaluation of the Proposed Sae J2364 15-Second Rule for Accessibility of Route Navigation System Functions while Driving , 2000 .

[59]  Michael I. Posner,et al.  Attention in a Social World , 2011 .

[60]  M. Posner,et al.  The developing brain in a multitasking world. , 2015, Developmental review : DR.

[61]  M. Posner,et al.  Topics in Integrative Neuroscience: Attention as an organ system , 2008 .

[62]  Donald E. Broadbent,et al.  Decision and stress , 1971 .

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