The effect of cellular phone use upon driver attention

McKnight, Abigail; McKnight, A. Scott

doi:10.1016/0001-4575(93)90020-w

Cited by 379 publications

(221 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

206

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, the phone task can be dis-tracting, disruptive to driving, and potentially dangerous (Goodman, 1997;Goodman et al, 1999). This general conclusion is supported by laboratory and driving simulation studies (McKnight and McKnight, 1993;Alm and Nilsson, 1993;Strayer and Johnston, 2001), closed track road studies (Ishida and Matsuura, 2001;Hancock et al, 2003), and open road studies (Brown et al, 1969;Harbluk et al, 2002;Patten et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Answer: 23]. This task was identical to the one used by McKnight and McKnight (1993). The numbers were presented at the rate of 1 per 2 s, and the subjects were allowed 5 s for their final response.…”

Section: Equipment and Measurement Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With respect to the distraction, we used two types of tasks: a math operations task (as in many previous studies), and an emotionally involving conversation. The math operations task has been shown to be sufficiently taxing to interfere with driving performance (McKnight and McKnight, 1993;Shinar et al, 2002), but its validity as a surrogate for a phone conversation is questionable. The conversation task has the needed ecological validity but suffers from the fact that it is much less structured andto be emotionally involving -has to be individually tailored to each subject.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of practice, age, and task demands, on interference from a phone task while driving

Shinar

Tractinsky

Compton

2005

Accident Analysis & Prevention

206

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experimental research on the effects of cellular phone conversations on driving indicates that the phone task interferes with many drivingrelated functions, especially with older drivers. Unfortunately in past research (1) the dual task conditions were not repeated in order to test for learning, (2) the 'phone tasks' were not representative of real conversations, and (3) most often both the driving and the phone tasks were experimenter-paced. In real driving drivers learn to time-share various tasks, they can pace their driving to accommodate the demands of a phone conversation, and they can even partially pace the phone conversation to accommodate the driving demands. The present study was designed to better simulate real driving conditions by providing a simulated driving environment with repeated experiences of driving while carrying two different hands-free 'phone' tasks with different proximities to real conversations. In the course of five sessions of driving and using the phone, there was a learning effect on most of the driving measures. In addition, the interference from the phone task on many of the driving tasks diminished over time as expected. Finally, the interference effects were greater when the phone task was the often-used artificial math operations task than when it was an emotionally involving conversation, when the driving demands were greater, and when the drivers were older. Thus, the deleterious effects of conversing on the phone are very real initially, but may not be as severe with continued practice at the dual task, especially for drivers who are not old.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Equipment and Measurement Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of practice, age, and task demands, on interference from a phone task while driving

Shinar

Tractinsky

Compton

2005

Accident Analysis & Prevention

206

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Memory changes are a major concern for many older adults, and older adults' reduced ability to keep previous, now-irrelevant information out of active consideration impairs their retrieval of the currently desired information (e.g., Lustig et al, in press;May et al, 1999a;Winocur & Moscovitch, 1983). Older adults' diYculty in ignoring environmental distraction can also lead to driving impairments, particularly when they are navigating in a complicated environment or attempting to simultaneously perform other tasks such as using a car phone and carrying on a conversation (e.g., Ball & Rebok, 1994;McKnight & McKnight, 1993;Sekuler, Bennett, & Mamelak, 2000).…”

Section: Inhibitory Control: Its Implications For Life In and Out Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhibitory control over the present and the past

Lustig

Hasher

Tonev

2001

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the perspective of the Hasher, Zacks, and May (1999) inhibitory framework, optimal performance occurs only when there is control over nonrelevant information. Relative to a current, goal-directed task, there are at least two potential sources of nonrelevant information that need to be controlled. The rst is no longer relevant information. Such information would include, for example, a previous topic of conversation, or, in our work, a previous list of materials presented for study and recall. The second source of nonrelevant information is currently present (in thought or in the world) stimuli that are not relevant to the task at hand. Inhibitory processes are critical to the eVective control of both sources of information-the no longer relevant past and the irrelevant present. If inhibitory processes are ineYcient, irrelevant information from both the past and the present will disrupt performance on the current task. We illustrate this with studies showing the role of irrelevant information in reducing the working memory capacity of older adults and in slowing them down as they do even reasonably simple tasks.''Oops! My mind wandered for a second-could you repeat that, please? '' We've all had occasion to say something like this during a conversation, even one that we were interested in and motivated to attend to. Perhaps Requests for reprints should be addressed to L. Hasher,

show abstract

“…In particular, multitasking of driving and conversing on a cell phone is technologically available, but intuitively seems dangerous in some circumstances. Although driving becomes sufficiently cognitively automated (Schneider, 1999) to permit experienced drivers to perform other tasks at the same time, such as carrying on a conversation, a large number of behavioral studies have now shown that performing another cognitive task while driving an actual or virtual car substantially degrades driving performance Nilsson, 1994, 1995;Anttila and Luoma, 2005;Beede and Kass, 2006;Brookhuis et al, 1991;Consiglio et al, 2003;Drory, 1985;Engström et al, 2005;Haigney et al, 2000;Hancock et al, 2003;Horberry et al, 2006;Horrey and Wickens, 2004;Hunton and Rose, 2005;Jamson and Merat, 2005;Kubose et al, 2006;Lamble et al, 1999;Lesch and Hancock, 2004;Liu and Lee, 2005;Matthews et al, 2003;McKnight and McKnight, 1993;Patten et al, 2004;Ranney et al, 2005; Nunes, 2000, 2003;Santos et al, 2005;Shinar et al, 2005; Drews, 2004, 2007;Strayer et al, 2003Strayer et al, , 2006Strayer and Johnston, 2001; Bolling, 2005, 2006;Treffner and Barrett, 2004). Although some of these studies show that some aspects of driving are unaffected by a secondary task (e.g., Haigney et al, 2000) and in some cases certain aspects improve (e.g., Brookhuis et al, 1991;Engström et al, 2005), a recent meta-analysis of the literature suggests a large overall decrement in driving performance when a secondary task is added (Horey and Wickens, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A decrease in brain activation associated with driving when listening to someone speak

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioral studies have shown that engaging in a secondary task, such as talking on a cellular telephone, disrupts driving performance. This study used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate the impact of concurrent auditory language comprehension on the brain activity associated with a simulated driving task. Participants steered a vehicle along a curving virtual road, either undisturbed or while listening to spoken sentences that they judged as true or false. The dual-task condition produced a significant deterioration in driving accuracy caused by the processing of the auditory sentences. At the same time, the parietal lobe activation associated with spatial processing in the undisturbed driving task decreased by 37% when participants concurrently listened to sentences. The findings show that language comprehension performed concurrently with driving draws mental resources away from the driving and produces deterioration in driving performance, even when it does not require holding or dialing a phone. IntroductionAn enduring question about the human mind concerns the ability to do two things at the same time. As technological and informational capabilities of our environment increase, the number of available information streams increases, and hence the opportunities for complex multitasking increase. In particular, multitasking of driving and conversing on a cell phone is technologically available, but intuitively seems dangerous in some circumstances. Although driving becomes sufficiently cognitively automated (Schneider, 1999) to permit experienced drivers to perform other tasks at the same time, such as carrying on a conversation, a large number of behavioral studies have now shown that performing another cognitive task while driving an actual or virtual car substantially degrades driving performance Nilsson, 1994, 1995;Anttila and Luoma, 2005;Beede and Kass, 2006;Brookhuis et al., 1991;Consiglio et al., 2003;Drory, 1985;Engström et al., 2005;Haigney et al., 2000;Hancock et al., 2003;Horberry et al., 2006;Horrey and Wickens, 2004;Hunton and Rose, 2005;Jamson and Merat, 2005;Kubose et al., 2006;Lamble et al., 1999;Lesch and Hancock, 2004;Liu and Lee, 2005;Matthews et al., 2003;McKnight and McKnight, 1993;Patten et al., 2004;Ranney et al., 2005; Nunes, 2000, 2003;Santos et al., 2005;Shinar et al., 2005; Drews, 2004, 2007;Strayer et al., 2003Strayer et al., , 2006Strayer and Johnston, 2001; Bolling, 2005, 2006;Treffner and Barrett, 2004). Although some of these studies show that some aspects of driving are unaffected by a secondary task (e.g., Haigney et al., 2000) and in some cases certain aspects improve (e.g., Brookhuis et al., 1991;Engström et al., 2005), a recent meta-analysis of the literature suggests a large overall decrement in driving performance when a secondary task is added (Horey and Wickens, 2006).

show abstract

The effect of cellular phone use upon driver attention

Cited by 379 publications

References 3 publications

Effects of practice, age, and task demands, on interference from a phone task while driving

Effects of practice, age, and task demands, on interference from a phone task while driving

Inhibitory control over the present and the past

A decrease in brain activation associated with driving when listening to someone speak

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About