Talking to your car can drive you to distraction

Abstract

This research examined the impact of in-vehicle information system (IVIS) interactions on the driver’s cognitive workload; 257 subjects participated in a weeklong evaluation of the IVIS interaction in one of ten different model-year 2015 automobiles. After an initial assessment of the cognitive workload associated with using the IVIS, participants took the vehicle home for 5 days and practiced using the system. At the end of the 5 days of practice, participants returned and the workload of these IVIS interactions was reassessed. The cognitive workload was found to be moderate to high, averaging 3.34 on a 5-point scale and ranged from 2.37 to 4.57. The workload was associated with the intuitiveness and complexity of the system and the time it took participants to complete the interaction. The workload experienced by older drivers was significantly greater than that experienced by younger drivers performing the same operations. Practice did not eliminate the interference from IVIS interactions. In fact, IVIS interactions that were difficult on the first day were still relatively difficult to perform after a week of practice. Finally, there were long-lasting residual costs after the IVIS interactions had terminated. The higher levels of workload should serve as a caution that these voice-based interactions can be cognitively demanding and ought not to be used indiscriminately while operating a motor vehicle.

Effects of Visual and Acoustic Distraction on Driving Behavior and EEG in Young and Older Car Drivers: A Driving Simulation Study

“…Given that most of the driving-related information is visual, secondary visual stimuli should thus be more difficult to inhibit than additional acoustic stimuli (e.g., Wickens and Seppelt, 2002; Sodnik et al, 2008). However, there are also large distraction effects by acoustic-verbal interactions with in-vehicle-information-systems (Strayer et al, 2016) and by talking to other passengers or on the cell phone (for a recent review, see Caird et al, 2018). These negative effects could be due to the relatively high complexity of this kind of distraction (Patten et al, 2004; Schweizer et al, 2013).…”

Advancing Methods and Mathematical Models of Perceptual Decision Making

“…Our findings may at first seem surprising because they are not in line with the capacity sharing account of DRT and driving performance (e.g., Strayer et al, 2011Strayer et al, , 2013. However, separate pools of capacity for DRT and driving is consistent with the finding that having to preform the DRT does not adversely impact driving (Strayer et al, 2014). Why then is the DRT a sensitive measure of cognitive load?…”

“…Surprisingly, no such decrements are observed when a similar conversation is held between the driver and a passenger in the car (Drews, Pasupathi, & Strayer, 2008). In fact, data on crash risk reveals lower accident rates when an adult passenger is in the car than when the driver is alone (Rueda-Domingo et al, 2004;Vollrath, Meilinger, & Krüger, 2002 (Strayer, Turrill, Coleman, Ortiz, & Cooper, 2014). The DRT measures cognitive load by asking participants in a driving simulator to respond when they detect a small light in their peripheral vision.…”

Distractions in the Anesthesia Work Environment: Impact on Patient Safety? Report of a Meeting Sponsored by the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation

“…12,13 Task switching was less efficient than focused attention on a single task, and in driving studies, secondary tasks were significant distractions to successful driving. 14,15 Strayer shared research that texting while driving induced a very high task workload, decreasing attention for the longest time (compared, eg, with telephone conversations) and resulting in performance decrements that were more significant than driving while drunk. [16][17][18] Bruce Hallbert (Idaho National Laboratory) showcased the nuclear power industry's intense focus on mitigating all sources of distraction, particularly in the main control room.…”