2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2005.04.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The interaction between driving and in-vehicle information systems: Comparison of results from laboratory, simulator and real-world studies

Abstract: Article:Santos, J., Merat, N., Mouta, S. et AbstractThe main objective of this study was to compare a standardised visual performance test in three driving research environments: laboratory, simulator and instrumented vehicle. The effects of a standardised secondary visual search task on the primary task, i.e. aspects of driving performance, were evaluated and compared between the three facilities. Results showed that for gross effects on performance indicators, aspects of lateral position control in the la… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
39
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 109 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
4
39
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, driving simulators vary considerably in sophistication and there are concerns over validity in some cases (Santos et al 2005;Burnett 2008;Young et al 2008). In conducting validity research, it can be extremely difficult to run road and simulator trials that are comparable in terms of participants, tasks, measures, variables, environment, etc.…”
Section: Methods For Capturing Driver Behaviourmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, driving simulators vary considerably in sophistication and there are concerns over validity in some cases (Santos et al 2005;Burnett 2008;Young et al 2008). In conducting validity research, it can be extremely difficult to run road and simulator trials that are comparable in terms of participants, tasks, measures, variables, environment, etc.…”
Section: Methods For Capturing Driver Behaviourmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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%
“…The second level is termed behavioral validity; this concerns the correspondence between the behavior of the operator in the simulator and in the real world. Although studies commonly assume that physical validity incorporates behavioral validity, the two are not consistently related [44]. According to Blaauw (1982) [5], the best way to test for behavioral validity is to compare driving in the simulator with driving a real car.…”
Section: Towards Ecological Validitymentioning
confidence: 99%