What do drivers fail to see when conversing on a cell phone?

Strayer, David L.; Cooper, Joel M.; Drews, Frank A.

doi:10.1037/e577202012-002

Cited by 26 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results replicate previous research by Strayer and colleagues (e.g., Strayer, et al, 2004); thus, the remainder of this paper will focus solely on the eye movement results.…”

Section: Experiments Design and Proceduressupporting

confidence: 79%

Allocating Visual Attention: How Relevance to Driving Impacts Attention when  Drivers are Distracted

Garrison

2011

Proceedings of the 6th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design : Dr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary: Use of cell phones while driving, and safety implications thereof, has captured public and scientific interest. Previous research has shown that driver reactions and visual attention are impacted by cell phone use, even when a handsfree device is used. In addition to these effects, Strayer and colleagues also found lower recognition for items present in the driving environment when drivers were using a cellular phone than when not using the phone. Strayer and colleagues used recognition as their primary measure of attention. Relevance to driving may have an impact on how attention is allocated to the environment via eye movements, separate from the impact on recognition memory. The current project used a medium-fidelity driving simulator to extend previous research by investigating how attention is allocated across driving-relevant and -irrelevant objects in the environment. Driving-relevant objects consisted of signs and potential hazards. Driving-irrelevant objects were billboards. Eye movement patterns (primarily measured by number of gazes) were impacted by distraction, and the pattern of gazes also differed across relevance levels, with hazards receiving the most gazes, and signs receiving the fewest. When only considering driving-relevant objects (i.e., signs vs. hazards), the eye movement measures showed an interaction between distraction and relevance. Signs received fewer gazes when drivers were distracted, whereas there was no comparable decrease in gazes to hazards.

show abstract

“…These results replicate previous research by Strayer and colleagues (e.g., Strayer, et al, 2004); thus, the remainder of this paper will focus solely on the eye movement results.…”

Section: Experiments Design and Proceduressupporting

confidence: 79%

Allocating Visual Attention: How Relevance to Driving Impacts Attention when  Drivers are Distracted

Garrison

2011

Proceedings of the 6th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design : Dr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Remote conversation tasks are associated with a disruption of visual attention and an increase of traffic signal misses and RTs (Strayer & Johnston, 2001;Strayer, Cooper, & Drews, 2004). However, it has also been shown that the location of the interlocutor has no real distracting influence; rather, conversation itself is the main source of distraction (Nunes & Recarte, 2002;Recarte & Nunes, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Driving and Speaking: Revelations by the Head-Mounted Detection Response Task

Conti

Dlugosch

Schwarz

et al. 2013

Proceedings of the 7th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design : Dr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary:The cognitive workload of speech-related activity needs to be examined in an economic and simple way. This is especially important as invehicle technology is becoming more cognitive with, for example, the use of speech-interaction and industry will need a way to keep pace with new technologies. One proposed way to measure cognitive workload is the detection response task (DRT) method. In this study, the DRT was used to assess different speech-related cognitive tasks. Three conversation tasks and the n-back task were performed together with a simulated driving task and a head-mounted DRT (HDRT). The aim was to evaluate the conversation and n-back tasks with the HDRT and to quantify the respective cognitive workload. Results show an increase in HDRT reaction times when additional cognitive tasks are performed relative to baseline measurements. In line with other research methods, the HDRT provided a reliable measurement of additional workload.

show abstract

“…Even when the participants' eyes were directed at objects in the driving environment for the same duration, they were less likely to remember them if they had been conversing on a cell phone. Strayer and Drews (2007a; see also Strayer, Cooper, & Drews, 2004) suggested that using a cell phone induces a form of inattention blindness whereby the cell phone conversation diverts attention from processing the information necessary to safely operate a motor vehicle.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Cognitive Distraction in the Automobile

Strayer¹,

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:The objective was to establish a systematic framework for measuring and understanding cognitive distraction in the automobile.Background: Driver distraction from secondary in-vehicle activities is increasingly recognized as a significant source of injuries and fatalities on the roadway.Method: Across three studies, participants completed eight in-vehicle tasks commonly performed by the driver of an automobile. Primary, secondary, subjective, and physiological measures were collected and integrated into a cognitive distraction scale.Results: In-vehicle activities, such as listening to the radio or an audio book, were associated with a low level of cognitive workload; the conversation activities of talking to a passenger in the vehicle or conversing with a friend on a handheld or hands-free cell phone were associated with a moderate level of cognitive workload; and using a speech-to-text interfaced e-mail system involved a high level of cognitive workload.Conclusion: The research established that there are significant impairments to driving that stem from the diversion of attention from the task of operating a motor vehicle and that the impairments to driving are directly related to the cognitive workload of these in-vehicle activities. Moreover, the adoption of voicebased systems in the vehicle may have unintended consequences that adversely affect traffic safety.Application: These findings can be used to help inform scientifically based policies on driver distraction, particularly as they relate to cognitive distraction stemming from the diversion of attention to other concurrent activities in the vehicle.

show abstract

What do drivers fail to see when conversing on a cell phone?

Cited by 26 publications

References 0 publications

Allocating Visual Attention: How Relevance to Driving Impacts Attention when  Drivers are Distracted

Allocating Visual Attention: How Relevance to Driving Impacts Attention when  Drivers are Distracted

Driving and Speaking: Revelations by the Head-Mounted Detection Response Task

Assessing Cognitive Distraction in the Automobile

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

What do drivers fail to see when conversing on a cell phone?

Cited by 26 publications

References 0 publications

Allocating Visual Attention: How Relevance to Driving Impacts Attention when Drivers are Distracted

Allocating Visual Attention: How Relevance to Driving Impacts Attention when Drivers are Distracted

Driving and Speaking: Revelations by the Head-Mounted Detection Response Task

Assessing Cognitive Distraction in the Automobile

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Allocating Visual Attention: How Relevance to Driving Impacts Attention when  Drivers are Distracted

Allocating Visual Attention: How Relevance to Driving Impacts Attention when  Drivers are Distracted