Producing a commentary slows concurrent hazard perception responses.

Abstract

Commentary driver training involves teaching drivers how to verbally acknowledge their perceptual and cognitive processes while driving, and has been shown to improve performance in driving-related tasks. However, those studies demonstrating benefits of commentary training have not done so under conditions of live commentary, which is the typical protocol used with advanced drivers. In the current study we present the results of 2 experiments that show that producing a commentary can actually slow responses to hazards on a concurrent hazard perception task. In Experiment 1, participants producing a live commentary showed significantly longer hazard response times than an untrained, silent, control group. In Experiment 2, a shorter, clipped commentary was introduced to attempt to reduce the demands placed upon participants. However, both the clipped and full commentary conditions showed reduced accuracy and longer response times, relative to a silent condition, and no difference was observed between the 2 types of commentary. Analysis of eye movements in both experiments revealed that fixation durations were shorter when a commentary was produced but time to first fixate the hazard was not affected. This suggests that commentaries encourage more active interrogation of the visual scene, but that this can be detrimental to performance in average drivers.

Proactive Listening to a Training Commentary improves hazard prediction

“…According to a paper accepted in JEPA, listening to commentaries can negatively affect eye movements (Young, Chapman and Crundall 2014). Perhaps the benefit to experts of the extra information outweighs the costs, but is the opposite true for novices?…”

Commentary driver training: Effects of commentary exposure, practice and production on hazard perception and eye movements

“…Not only do trainees produce on-road commentaries with supervision, they are also able to use commercially available DVDs that demonstrate an expert commentary and suggest that the viewer carry out their own on-road commentaries (Gilbert, 2007). Young et al (2014) found that when commentary exposure is followed by production of a driving commentary during a hazard perception test, hazard perception response times are significantly longer than in a control group that was neither exposed to commentary nor producing a commentary at test. This has important implications for commentary driver training, suggesting that trainees should not be encouraged to perform their own commentary on the road without expert supervision.…”

“…Since commentary driving involves talking about the contents of the visual scene, which should be attended to for hazard perception, one might expect the demands to be lower than other types of conversation but a detriment is still observed (Young et al, 2014). In order to establish whether the detriment of a live commentary is specific to producing a commentary following an earlier example or caused by any speech about the visual scene while searching for hazards we can compare the effects of producing a commentary after exposure to those of producing a naïve commentary, based on only limited instruction without commentary exposure.…”

“…In Young et al (2014) the observed slowing of hazard perception responses occurred when trainees were exposed to commentary using a video-based commentary example, and then produced their own commentary at test. It seems unlikely that commentary exposure caused the observed detriment, given that other research has shown benefits of commentary exposure, so the commentary production element is the prime candidate for having caused interference.…”

“…This raises the possibility that the observed benefits of videobased commentary training could in fact be due, at least in part, to a placebo effect. In Young et al (2014) participants in both the commentary exposed and control groups were asked to search for and respond to hazards during the commentary video, to ensure that all participants were engaged in watching the footage, not just those listening to commentary. Although this reduced the likelihood of placebo effects, the effect of commentary production was confounded with that of commentary exposure.…”