Effects of age and smartphone experience on driver behavior during address entry

McWilliams, Thomas; Reimer, Bryan; Coughlin, Joseph F.

doi:10.1145/2799250.2799275

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is no clear consensus on what constitutes an acceptable interaction time for a secondary task. Problematically, the issue is confounded by research suggesting that secondary tasks are often sensitive to whether testing is completed in a static (i.e., not driving) or dynamic (i.e., driving) environment (Young et al, 2005), the age of participants (McWilliams, Reimer, Mehler, Dobres, & Coughlin, 2015), and performance characteristics of the primary or secondary tasks (Tsimhoni, Yoo, & Green, 1999). Because of the visual demands associated with driving, visual secondary tasks generally take longer to complete when performed concurrently with driving.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the visual and cognitive demands of in-vehicle information systems

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background New automobiles provide a variety of features that allow motorists to perform a plethora of secondary tasks unrelated to the primary task of driving. Despite their ubiquity, surprisingly little is known about how these complex multimodal in-vehicle information systems (IVIS) interactions impact a driver’s workload. Results The current research sought to address three interrelated questions concerning this knowledge gap: (1) Are some task types more impairing than others? (2) Are some modes of interaction more distracting than others? (3) Are IVIS interactions easier to perform in some vehicles than others? Depending on the availability of the IVIS features in each vehicle, our testing involved an assessment of up to four task types (audio entertainment, calling and dialing, text messaging, and navigation) and up to three modes of interaction (e.g., center stack, auditory vocal, and the center console). The data collected from each participant provided a measure of cognitive demand, a measure of visual/manual demand, a subjective workload measure, and a measure of the time it took to complete the different tasks. The research provides empirical evidence that the workload experienced by drivers systematically varied as a function of the different tasks, modes of interaction, and vehicles that we evaluated. Conclusions This objective assessment suggests that many of these IVIS features are too distracting to be enabled while the vehicle is in motion. Greater consideration should be given to what interactions should be available to the driver when the vehicle is in motion rather than to what IVIS features and functions could be available to motorists. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s41235-019-0166-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the visual and cognitive demands of in-vehicle information systems

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Existing systems were shown to be distracting [14], [15], and hard to use by older adults [16], [17], which shapes a big part of our participants. Old adults tend to have lower visual and motor abilities due to the aging process [18].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

PureNav: A Personalized Navigation Service for Environmental Justice Communities Impacted by Planned Disruptions

Hammad,

Rahman,

Clements

et al. 2023

Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The question of distraction has been a central one for driving research and driver safety in recent years, particularly with the advent of smartphones. The consensus is that using a smartphone while driving increases operational errors (McWilliams, Reimer, Mehler, & Dobres, 2015;Reimer, Mehler, & Donmez, 2014;Reimer, Mehler, Reagan, Kidd, & Dobres, 2016;Samost et al, 2016;Strayer, Cooper, & Drews, 2004;Strayer & Drews, 2007;Strayer, Drews, & Crouch, 2006;Strayer, Drews, & Johnston, 2003), and this is broadly interpreted as being a result of the driver's need to divide their attention between the phone and the road environment. Other recent changes in the vehicle have similar consequences, in particular the shift from manual switches to touchscreens, which require the driver to look at and attend to them in order to change settings (Chiang, Brooks, & Weir, 2001;Kidd, Dobres, Reagan, Mehler, & Reimer, 2017;Lee, Mehler, Reimer, & Coughlin, 2016;Strayer, Cooper, Turrill, Coleman, & Hopman, 2016;Tsimhoni, Smith, & Green, 2004;Watson & Strayer, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of brake lights while distracted: Separating peripheral vision from cognitive load

Wolfe

Sawyer

Kosovicheva

et al. 2019

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drivers rarely focus exclusively on driving, even with the best of intentions. They are distracted by passengers, navigation systems, smartphones, and driver assistance systems. Driving itself requires performing simultaneous tasks, including lane keeping, looking for signs, and avoiding pedestrians. The dangers of multitasking while driving, and efforts to combat it, often focus on the distraction itself, rather than on how a distracting task can change what the driver can perceive. Critically, some distracting tasks require the driver to look away from the road, which forces the driver to use peripheral vision to detect drivingrelevant events. As a consequence, both looking away and being distracted may degrade driving performance. To assess the relative contributions of these factors, we conducted a laboratory experiment in which we separately varied cognitive load and point of gaze. Subjects performed a visual 0-back or 1-back task at one of four fixation locations superimposed on a real-world driving video, while simultaneously monitoring for brake lights in their lane of travel. Subjects were able to detect brake lights in all conditions, but once the eccentricity of the brake lights increased, they responded more slowly and missed more braking events. However, our cognitive load manipulation had minimal effects on detection performance, reaction times, or miss rates for brake lights. These results suggest that, for tasks that require the driver to look off-road, the decrements observed may be due to the need to use peripheral vision to monitor the road, rather than due to the distraction itself. Keywords Attention. Scene perception. Visual perception Safe driving demands continual visual awareness of the environment around the vehicle. Distraction can impact both the driver's level of awareness and ability to maintain operational control. Nearly any task that distracts a driver has negative consequences for safe vehicle operation (Victor et al., 2015; K. Young & Regan, 2007). Although much of the work in driver distraction has explained the dangers of distraction in terms of drivers' need to divide their attention (Strayer & Drews, 2007; Strayer et al., 2015), some recent work has suggested a more complex account (Seaman et al., 2017). In

show abstract

Effects of age and smartphone experience on driver behavior during address entry

Cited by 5 publications

References 10 publications

Assessing the visual and cognitive demands of in-vehicle information systems

Assessing the visual and cognitive demands of in-vehicle information systems

PureNav: A Personalized Navigation Service for Environmental Justice Communities Impacted by Planned Disruptions

Detection of brake lights while distracted: Separating peripheral vision from cognitive load

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About