Multitasking in Driving as Optimal Adaptation Under Uncertainty

OBJECTIVE The objective was to better understand how people adapt multitasking behavior when circumstances in driving change and how safe versus unsafe behaviors emerge. BACKGROUND Multitasking strategies in driving adapt to changes in the task environment, but the cognitive mechanisms of this adaptation are not well known. Missing is a unifying account to explain the joint contribution of task constraints, goals, cognitive capabilities, and beliefs about the driving environment. METHOD We model the driver's decision to deploy visual attention as a stochastic sequential decision-making problem and propose hierarchical reinforcement learning as a computationally tractable solution to it. The supervisory level deploys attention based on per-task value estimates, which incorporate beliefs about risk. Model simulations are compared against human data collected in a driving simulator. RESULTS Human data show adaptation to the attentional demands of ongoing tasks, as measured in lane deviation and in-car gaze deployment. The predictions of our model fit the human data on these metrics. CONCLUSION Multitasking strategies can be understood as optimal adaptation under uncertainty, wherein the driver adapts to cognitive constraints and the task environment's uncertainties, aiming to maximize the expected long-term utility. Safe and unsafe behaviors emerge as the driver has to arbitrate between conflicting goals and manage uncertainty about them. APPLICATION Simulations can inform studies of conditions that are likely to give rise to unsafe driving behavior.

[1]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[2]  Drew McDermott,et al.  Planning and Acting , 1978, Cogn. Sci..

[3]  Feng Guo,et al.  Driver crash risk factors and prevalence evaluation using naturalistic driving data , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  Richard S. Sutton,et al.  Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction , 1998, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[5]  M. Frank,et al.  Mechanisms of hierarchical reinforcement learning in corticostriatal circuits 1: computational analysis. , 2012, Cerebral cortex.

[6]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  On How Often the Supervisor Should Sample , 1970, IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern..

[7]  Mary M. Hayhoe,et al.  Control of gaze while walking: Task structure, reward, and uncertainty , 2017, Journal of vision.

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

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

[10]  Dario D. Salvucci,et al.  Threaded cognition: an integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. , 2008, Psychological review.

[11]  Andrew Howes,et al.  A cognitive constraint model of dual-task trade-offs in a highly dynamic driving task , 2007, CHI.

[12]  Duncan P. Brumby,et al.  Strategic Adaptation to Task Characteristics, Incentives, and Individual Differences in Dual-Tasking , 2015, PloS one.

[13]  D. Ballard,et al.  The role of uncertainty and reward on eye movements in a virtual driving task. , 2012, Journal of vision.

[14]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

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

[16]  Joshua D. Hoffman,et al.  Scrolling and Driving , 2012, Hum. Factors.

[17]  Daniel Gopher,et al.  On the Economy of the Human Processing System: A Model of Multiple Capacity. , 1977 .

[18]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Rational adaptation under task and processing constraints: implications for testing theories of cognition and action. , 2009, Psychological review.

[19]  Alachew Mengist,et al.  Tactical steering behaviour under irrevocable visual occlusion , 2018 .

[20]  John W. Senders,et al.  The Human Operator as a Monitor and Controller of Multidegree of Freedom Systems , 1964 .

[21]  Dana H. Ballard,et al.  Eye Movements for Reward Maximization , 2003, NIPS.

[22]  Dario D. Salvucci An integrated model of eye movements and visual encoding , 2001, Cognitive Systems Research.

[23]  D. Alan Allport,et al.  SHIFTING INTENTIONAL SET - EXPLORING THE DYNAMIC CONTROL OF TASKS , 1994 .

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

[25]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Attentional Models of Multitask Pilot Performance Using Advanced Display Technology , 2003, Hum. Factors.

[26]  John D. Lee,et al.  Modeling microstructure of drivers' task switching behavior , 2019, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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

[28]  Duncan P. Brumby,et al.  Natural Break Points , 2012 .

[29]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Interaction as an Emergent Property of a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process , 2018 .

[30]  William J Horrey,et al.  Modeling drivers' visual attention allocation while interacting with in-vehicle technologies. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[31]  R. Baloh,et al.  Quantitative measurement of saccade amplitude, duration, and velocity , 1975, Neurology.

[32]  Walter W. Wierwille,et al.  An initial model of visual sampling of in-car displays and controls , 1993 .

[33]  Y Ian Noy,et al.  Task interruptability and duration as measures of visual distraction. , 2004, Applied ergonomics.

[34]  Fokie Cnossen,et al.  Strategic changes in task performance in simulated car driving as an adaptive response to task demands , 2000 .

[35]  M. Botvinick Hierarchical reinforcement learning and decision making , 2012, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

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

[37]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The role of reward and effort over time in task switching , 2019, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science.

[38]  Andreas Lüdtke,et al.  Dynamic simulation and prediction of drivers' attention distribution , 2013 .

[39]  Leslie Pack Kaelbling,et al.  Planning and Acting in Partially Observable Stochastic Domains , 1998, Artif. Intell..

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

[41]  Samuel J. Gershman,et al.  Computational rationality: A converging paradigm for intelligence in brains, minds, and machines , 2015, Science.

[42]  Dario D. Salvucci,et al.  Modeling visual sampling on in-car displays: The challenge of predicting safety-critical lapses of control , 2015, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..