Detailed analysis of distraction induced by in-vehicle verbal interactions on visual search performance

Shinohara, Kazuyuki; Nakamura, Takahiro; Tatsuta, Seiji; Iba, Youichi

doi:10.1016/j.iatssr.2010.06.004

Cited by 6 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unfortunately, from our data we are unable to identify whether the interference occurred at the perceptual or response stage. However, in contrast to previous work (Kunar et al, 2018, Shinohara, et al, 2010 our data also point to a possible effect of conversation on participants' search efficiency. This is true for Experiments 4 and 6 here (although not Experiment 5) in which search was less efficient when participants were conversing compared to the No Conversation conditions.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…This contrasts with work by Kunar et al (2018) and Shinohara, et al, (2010) who demonstrated that verbal tasks, performed concurrently to a visual search task, did not influence the rate at which participants searched through a display.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 96%

“…Specifically, holding a conversation led to search becoming less efficient for both the preview and FEB display conditions. These findings contrast with those of Kunar et al (2018) who found that dual-task costs of verbal tasks and conversations did not interfere with the search rate but did cause an upward shift in RTs (see also Shinohara, et al, 2010, who also found no effect of verbal or listening tasks on search slopes). We consider this difference further in the General Discussion.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 71%

“…It is not clear why these differences occurred. However, one explanation may be that search was less efficient overall in the work by Kunar et al (2018) and Shinohara, et al, (2010) as indicated by the steep search slopes (around 80 ms/item). If search was already particularly effortful, then any slowing of search efficiency bought about by conversation may not have been so easy to detect (see for example Watson, Maylor & Bruce, 2005, for a similar argument related to the effect of old age on enumeration efficiency).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Having a phone conversation delays but does not disrupt cognitive mechanisms.

Gunnell¹,

Kunar²,

Watson³

2020

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public Significance StatementThis study suggests that engaging in a phone conversation does not prevent people from performing a cognitive task. People remain able to learn spatial layouts and filter out irrelevant information when conversing and performing a visual search task. However, having a conversation leads to a consistent delay in their responses. This delay has consequences for applied tasks where the ability to respond quickly is important (e.g. driving). AbstractPrevious research has shown that talking on a mobile phone leads to impairments in a number of cognitive tasks. However, it is not yet known whether the act of conversation disrupts the underlying cognitive mechanisms (the Cognitive Disruption hypothesis) or leads to a delay in response due to a limit on central cognitive resources (the Cognitive Delay hypothesis). We investigated this here using two cognitive search tasks that investigate spatial learning and time-based selection: Contextual Cueing and Visual Marking. In Contextual Cueing, responses to repeated displays are faster than those to novel displays. In Visual Marking, participants prioritise attention to new information and deprioritise old, unimportant information (the 'Preview Benefit'). Experiments 1 to 3 investigated whether Contextual Cueing occurred while people were engaged in a phone conversation, whereas Experiments 4 to 6 investigated whether a Preview Benefit occurred, again while people were engaged in conversation. The results showed that having a conversation did not interfere with the mechanisms underlying spatial learning or time-based selection. However, in all experiments there was a significant increase in response times. The results are consistent with a Cognitive Delay account explaining the dual-task cost of having a phone conversation on concurrent cognitive tasks.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 96%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 71%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Having a phone conversation delays but does not disrupt cognitive mechanisms.

Gunnell¹,

Kunar²,

Watson³

2020

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, studies have been actively investigating the potential effects of in-vehicle sources of distraction such as using a cell phone or watching digital multimedia broadcasting (DMB) technologies on driving performance. These studies provide evidence of the relationship between the secondary task and the risk of a motor vehicle accident while driving (Horberry, Anderson, Regan, Triggs, & Brown, 2006;Shiohara, Nakamura, Tatsuta, & Iba, 2010;Gable, Walker, & Moses, 2012;McKeever, Schultheis, Padmanaban, & Blasco, 2013;Strayer & Drews, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Influence of Driver’s Career and Secondary Cognitive Task on Visual Search Behavior in Driving: A Dual-Task Paradigm

Lee¹,

Park²,

Lim³

et al. 2015

APE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of driving career and secondary cognitive task on dual-tasking performances and visual search behavior. Twenty male participants were grouped in the following two groups: the experienced group and the novice group. All participants were asked to drive at a speed of 120 km/h while keeping to a lane on the highway and engaging with the following three levels of secondary cognitive task: no cognitive task, easy level, and hard level. The results showed significantly lower correct response rates in the dual task condition (driving + cognitive task) than in the driving only task condition. Novice drivers showed greater decrements in cognitive task performance, particularly in the dual task condition, as compared to the experienced drivers. The total fixation duration decreased as the level of the secondary task increased in difficulty. Experienced drivers showed significantly longer fixation duration on the far-area of the road, and also on specific areas, whereas novice drivers fixated longer on the neararea of the road. In conclusion, we suggest that the importance of perceptual skills in driving should be emphasized and effective training methods need to be applied, especially among highrisk drivers.

show abstract

The effects of information relevancy on driving behavior

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bus driving is a complex and cognitively challenging task that places high demands on bus drivers’ working memory. Increasing use of “In-Vehicle Information Systems” leads to driver distraction and is a contributing factor to many road accidents globally, and with systems for tickets, navigation, and timetables, bus drivers are more exposed to this additional workload than other actors in the traffic. This study provides insights into how bus drivers’ driving behavior is affected by auditory traffic information through a driving simulator study at the Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute. A pre-study showed that many bus drivers in Gothenburg experience that a majority of the messages they receive are irrelevant to them. Difference in driving behavior was identified for conditions in which the drivers received messages irrelevant to their route, which might indicate that irrelevancy is an important factor for the workload imposed to the drivers. We hypothesize that irrelevant messages require processing in the visuospatial sketchpad, which might increase workload more than just auditory information processing. The results of this study implies that the routines for traffic communication between traffic controllers and bus drivers should be considerate, as to reduce the number of irrelevant messages that are cognitively loading the bus drivers.

show abstract

Detailed analysis of distraction induced by in-vehicle verbal interactions on visual search performance

Cited by 6 publications

References 37 publications

Having a phone conversation delays but does not disrupt cognitive mechanisms.

Having a phone conversation delays but does not disrupt cognitive mechanisms.

Influence of Driver’s Career and Secondary Cognitive Task on Visual Search Behavior in Driving: A Dual-Task Paradigm

The effects of information relevancy on driving behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About