driver distraction: a view from the simulator frank drews & david strayer
DESCRIPTION
Research Questions Does conversing on a cell phone interfere with driving? What are the sources of the interference? Peripheral interference (dialing, holding the phone) Attentional interference (cell phone conversation) Who is affected? Are there age / expertise effects? How much are drivers affected? How significant is the interference? How do other cell phone activities compare? How do other types of conversation compare?TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator
Frank Drews & David Strayer
![Page 2: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Distracted Driving and Multi-tasking...
![Page 3: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Research Questions
Does conversing on a cell phone interfere with driving? What are the sources of the interference?
Peripheral interference (dialing, holding the phone) Attentional interference (cell phone conversation)
Who is affected? Are there age / expertise effects?
How much are drivers affected? How significant is the interference? How do other cell phone activities compare? How do other types of conversation compare?
![Page 4: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Simulator-Based Studies
![Page 5: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Does conversing on a cell phone interfere with driving (Experiment 1)
Car-following paradigm Follow periodically braking pace car Required timely and appropriate reactions Hands-free cell phone (positioned in advance) Naturalistic conversations
Conditions Single vs. dual-task Low vs. moderate density *
Measures Reaction time Following distance Rear-end collisions
Low
Mod.
Single Dual
![Page 6: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Reaction Time
800850900950
1000105011001150
Low Density Moderate Density
Reac
tion
Tim
e
SingleDual
![Page 7: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Following Distance
2021222324252627282930
Low Density Moderate Density
Follo
win
g D
ista
nce (
Met
ers)
SingleDual
![Page 8: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Rear-end Collisions
0
1
2
3
Low Density Moderate Density
Rea
r-end
Col
lisio
ns
SingleDual
![Page 9: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Summary (Experiment 1)
Cell-phone driver’s Slower reaction times Drivers compensate by increasing following distance Increase in rear-end accidents
Cell-phone interference Naturalistic conversations
![Page 10: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Why Do Cell Phones Cause Interference?
From earlier studies, no interference from: Radio broadcasts (audio input) Books on tape & recorded conversations (audio/verbal input) Simple shadowing (audio/verbal input, verbal output)
Implies active engagement in conversation necessary Impairments from both hand-held and hands-free units
Implies central / cognitive locus Inattention-blindness (Neisser, Simons)
![Page 11: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Inattention-Blindness (Experiment 2)
Is there cell-phone induced inattention blindness?
Hands-free cell phone Naturalistic conversation with confederate Eye tracker
Two phases to the study: Phase 1: Single & dual-task driving Phase 2: Recognition memory tests for
objects encountered while driving
![Page 12: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Recognition Memory Given Fixation
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Single-Task Dual-Task
Cond
ition
al R
ecog
nitio
n Pr
obab
ility
![Page 13: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Summary (Experiment 2)
Cell phone conversations create inattention blindness for traffic related events/scenes
Cell phone drivers look but fail to see up to half of the information in the driving environment
No evidence that cell phone drivers protect more traffic relevant information
![Page 14: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Are there age / experience effects? (Experiment 3)
Car-following paradigm Follow periodically braking pace car Required timely and appropriate reactions Hands-free cell phone (positioned in advance) Naturalistic conversations
Performance Measures Reaction time Recovery time Driving speed Following distance
Younger Adults
Older Adults
Single Dual
![Page 15: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
Younger Older
Reac
tion
Tim
e
SingleDual
Brake Reaction Time
![Page 16: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Summary (Experiment 3)
Main effect of single vs. dual-task: Reaction time Following distance
Main effect of age: Slower reactions Slower driving speed Greater following distance
No Age x Task interaction
![Page 17: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
How Significant is the Interference?The drunk driver (Experiment 4)
Cell-phone vs. drunk-driver Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997) suggested that “the relative risk
[of being in a traffic accident while using a cell-phone] is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit” (p. 465).
![Page 18: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Cell-phone Driver vs. Drunk Driver
Car-following paradigm Follow periodically braking pace car Required timely and appropriate reactions
Conditions Single-task driving Cell-phone driving * Intoxicated driving (BAC= 0.08 wt/vol)
* Hands-free = Hand-held
![Page 19: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Reaction Time
700750800850900950
10001050
Intoxicated Driving Cell-Phone Driving
Reac
tion
Tim
e
![Page 20: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Following Distance
25.025.526.026.527.027.528.028.529.0
Intoxicated Driving Cell-Phone Driving
Follo
win
g D
ista
nce (
met
ers)
![Page 21: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Rear-end Collisions
0
1
2
3
4
Intoxicated Driving Cell-Phone Driving
Rear
-end
Col
lisio
ns
![Page 22: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Summary (Experiment 4)
Compared to drunk drivers, cell-phone drivers React slower Increase following distance Compensate by increasing following distance But: Still more rear-end accidents
When controlling for time on task and driving conditions, cell-phone drivers’ performance is worse than that of the drunk driver
![Page 23: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Other cell phone related activities: Text messaging (Experiment 5)
Car-following paradigm Follow periodically braking pace car Required timely and appropriate reactions 20 friend dyads
Conditions Single vs. dual-task
Measures Reaction time Following distance Minimum following distance Rear-end collisions
Single Dual
![Page 24: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Reaction Time
700750800850900950
100010501100
single task dual task
Reac
tion
Tim
e
![Page 25: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Following Distance
0.05.0
10.015.020.025.030.035.040.0
single task dual task
Follo
win
g Dist
ance
(met
ers)
mean min mean min
![Page 26: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Rear-end Collisions
01234567
single task dual task
Rear
-end
Col
lisio
ns
![Page 27: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Test messaging drivers Slower reaction times Increased following distance But: smaller minimum distance Increase in rear-end accidents
Things can be worse: Text messaging exceeds cell phone conversations in accident risk
Summary (Experiment 5)
![Page 28: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
![Page 29: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Other types of conversations: Cell Phone vs. Passenger Conversations (Experiment 6)
Conditions Single task / dual task Conversing on cell phone Conversing with passenger
Design Task (2) x Condition (2)
Cell
Passenger
Single Dual
![Page 30: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Free driving paradigm 8 miles of highway Exit highway at rest area Hands-free cell phone Close call stories / friends
Performance Measures Lane keeping Navigation task Traffic references
Cell Phone vs. Passenger Conversations
![Page 31: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Lane Keeping Errors
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Single-Task Passenger Cell Phone
RMS
Erro
r
![Page 32: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Successful Navigation
0
20
40
60
80
100
Single-Task Passenger Cell Phone
% C
orre
ct Ex
it
![Page 33: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Traffic References
0
1
2
3
4
Passenger Cell Phone
Num
ber o
f Ref
eren
ces
![Page 34: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Summary (Experiment 6)
Cell-phone conversations More lane keeping errors More navigation errors Fewer references to traffic
Passenger conversations Collaborative problem solving Shared situation awareness Passenger actively supports the driver
![Page 35: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
The answers
Does conversing on a cell phone interfere with driving? Yes
What are the sources of the interference? Peripheral interference (dialing) Attentional interference (inattention blindness)
Who is affected? Younger and older drivers equally affected
How significant is the interference? Worse than listening to radio/books on tape Worse than in-vehicle conversations Worse than driving while legally intoxicated BUT: Less significant than text messaging
![Page 36: Driver Distraction: A view from the simulator Frank Drews & David Strayer](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062905/5a4d1b0b7f8b9ab05998ac74/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)