Distraction from multiple in-vehicle secondary tasks : vehicle performance and mental workload implications

마스터 Sujung Baek 부제목 스타일 편집 Choi Donghee Nam Kyung Hyun

i D E A L A B

i D E A + L A B

i D E A L A B

22

Contents n n n n n Introduction Method Results Discussion Conclusion i D E A L A B 33 .

The implications of the findings from the experiment and the need to integrate and manage complex in-vehicle information systems are discussed. n n n i D E A L A B 44 . Nicola Brook-Carter & Tanita Kersloot (2004) Ergonomics Impact of multiple in-vehicle secondary tasks on driver’s primary task performance. Lansdown. mental workload.Introduction n Terry C. and emotional state.

. → Processing Capacity ↓ → performance ↓ n Figure.g. 1982) and Multiple resource theory (Wickens. Human Information Processing model (Wickens. n Similar tasks compete for the same modular resources.Introduction n Motivation l Human Information Processing Model l Limited Attentional Resource Multiple resources and Mental workload (Wickens & Hollands. n Perceptual and cognitive (e. working memory) tasks use different resources from those underlying the selection and execution of action. 1984) i D E A L A B 55 . 2000) n Demands arise from individual tasks and combinations.

behavior Interface design To find the potential impact of secondary information systems on driving Personality Experience Mental workload Attentional allocation Driving experience Zwahlen et al. mance decrements for drivers interactLiu.Introduction n Previous works Authors Dewing et al. 1995 Purpose Findings To Investigate the impact of simultane-Uncertainty in combination with the variability ous information conflicts caused by in-of primary task demands has raised concerns teracting with more than one secondaryregarding potential disruption of safe driving task on the driving task . To find the factors that produce perfor1967. 1994 Summala. 1997 Matanzo & Rockewell. 1988.. Wierwille. 1998 i D E A L A B 66 . 1996 ing with in-vehicle information Summala et al.. 1996 Handcock & Verwey.. 1993 Wilde.

doesn’t hold universally true (Kortling 1994) i D E A L A B 77 . Wierwill and Gutmann 1978) Sequence following (Brown 1965) Detection of double stimuli (Brown 1965) Rearview mirror traffic monitoring (Wagner et al. 1977) n Slowing complexity hypothesis (Salthouse 1982) l Dual task may be conceptualized as a complex single task l Dual task performance decrements are suggested to be due to increases in overall task complexity l But. 1977.Introduction n Driving task demands l Dual task n n n n n Digit detection (Brown and Poulton 1961) Digit repeat tasks (Wierwille et al.

Introduction n Theoretical dual task performance (Gopher 1990) l Harder primary task results in a reduction in task performance than easy primary task l Introduce secondary task to the easy primary activity impair primary task performance l Performance during a hard primary task is significantly decrease by the secondary task n (operators’ central processing capacity has been exceeded. Theoretical dual task performance i D E A L A B 88 . primary performance suffers) Figure.

participants were presented with simultaneous visual tasks to address concerns with task conflicts that are comparable with in-vehicle information system.Introduction n Null hypotheses l There would be no significant differences in vehicle control. n i D E A L A B 99 . mental workload or emotional state during interacting with multiple in-vehicle tasks when compared to single tasks or normal driving l Unpredictable (unpaced) task interruptions would not be significantly different to predictable (paced) task interruptions for vehicle control. mental workload or emotional state In this study.

2% Average number of days driven 6. 12 females) l Age range 18 – 59 yrs (mean: 40.4 days/week i D E A L A B 1010 . unpaced.17 yrs) l Experienced drivers: n n n n Average annual distance driven 23800km Average percentage distance driven on motorway 30.Methods n Design l Repeated measures design l Task type : Between participants factor (paced. paced and interruption) Participants l 23 participants (11 males.

1990) n Mood adjective checklist l l i D E A L A B 1111 .60Hz Car is mounted on hydraulic rams l In-vehicle ‘landscape’ displays (100 x 75 mm) Paper-based NASA TLX (Hart and Staveland 1988) n Subjective mental workload assessment Paper-based UWIST (Matthews et al.Methods n Apparatus and materials l TRL Driving Simulator n n n Full size car is surrounded by 3 screens Scene is updated at rates between 30 .

Procedure n Training task l Familiarization l Training session lasted between 5 to 10 min. After the training. pre-test levels of subjective mental workload and emotional state were obtained. n Figure. 3-lane M3 motorway i D E A L A B 1212 . l Participants were asked to drive on the UK M3 motorway: l 3 lanes with 4 to 8 other vehicles n Vans or lorries would be within the 200m ahead or behind the driven car.

n Participants were instructed to press up key to the vowels. letter stimuli were presented on the right screen at an irregular rate (letter stimuli have higher priority to be processed). and press left key to the odd number. n l l l i D E A L A B 1313 . and to press down key to the consonants Control task: no secondary tasks.) Paced and interruption task: in addition to the paced task.).Results n Experimental trial l Paced task While driving . n Press right key in response to the even number. numbers were presented on the left screen with regular interval (approximately 30sec. to 3 min. (15sec. Unpaced task: the same with paced task except that the numbers were presented at an irregular rate.

and frustration n Mental & temporal demand: Paced & Interrupted. & Frustration: Paced & Interrupted >> Control l Performance: no significant differences were found between 4 different task types Figure. effort. Unpaced>> Control l Sub-components: significant differences were found in mental demand. physical demand. and Unpaced >> Control n Physical demand. Subjective mental workload by task type i D E A L A B 1414 .Results n Mental workload (NASA-TLX) l Overall score: Paced & Interrupted>> Paced. Paced. Effort. temporal demand.

67m) / least headway: Unpaced (mean: 2.12m). Paced & Interrupted (mean: 7.Results n UWIST mood checklist l No significant differences were found between 4 different tasks Headway l Def.001) l Greatest headway: Control task (mean: 9. df =3.85m) >> Paced (mean: 6.4m) No significant differences were observed between any of the three task types involving a secondary task.12. i D E A L A B 1515 .: The distance between the driven car and the car ahead.4m) n n n Post hoc: Control . p<0. l Data was collected by the driving simulator automatically when a vehicle is closer than 200m ahead. Unpaced (mean: 2. l A significant difference was found in headway between the different task types (F=18.

Figure. Paced and Interrupted and the Control types.01) l l l Post hoc: Unpaced >> the other three tasks No significant differences were found between the Paced. Summary of brake pressure by task type i D E A L A B 1616 . No gender effects were found.Results n Brake pressure l Standard deviation of brake pressure was significantly different between task types (P < 0.

Speed and Gender by condition i D E A L A B 1717 .0mph) and Paced and Interrupted (29.001) Post hoc: Control (32.2mph).05) Figure. (p < 0.0mph) >> Unpaced (30. Paced (30.4mph) A significant differences was observed between the mean speeds of males and females.Results n Mean speed l l l Significant difference between the tasks was observed (p < 0.

Mean correct and incorrect secondary task reaction times by secondary tasks i D E A L A B 1818 .001) n Figure.001) l Incorrect mean reaction times were found to be significantly different between the 4 tasks. (p = 0.Results n Lane position and movement in lane l No significant differences were observed Secondary task reaction time l A significant difference was observed between the mean reaction times for correct responses to the tasks (p < 0.

(p < 0.Results n Secondary task performance l The percentage of correct responses to the secondary tasks was significantly lower in the interruption task.001) l The distraction of the interruption task did not degrade performance of the paced task. Figure. Mean correct and incorrect secondary task reaction times by secondary tasks i D E A L A B 1919 .

l Because vehicle speed is reduced to offset the increasing workload. Accuracy l High priority task was less accurate than the comparable other tasks. Mean speed l During normal driving was faster than other conditions. l Visual occlusion and vehicle speed were used interchangeably 2020 n n n i D E A L A B .Discussion n Mental workload l Overall mental workload was significantly lower during normal driving in comparison to the dual task. Response time l High priority task was quicker than other secondary tasks.

l Spatial uncertainty during concurrent visual tasks has been shown to produce greater task interference than concurrent verbal tasks (Liu. l Between paced and unpaced conditions. Brake pressure l Increased during unpaced task with interruption of the drivers’ task. but multiple simultaneous secondary task might require one of divided attentional allocation. the drivers’ ability to control the vehicle was disrupted but the task does not perceived as complex task needed cautious manner. 1996) l Drivers might adopt a selective attentional resource during single secondary task. 2121 n i D E A L A B .Discussion n Headways l Reduced when interacting with a single secondary task l It interrupts maintaining a comfortable headway compared with normal driving.

l Integration and management of driver information is advocated n i D E A L A B 2222 .Conclusion n The influence of multiple non-driving tasks on vehicle and secondary task performance l Greater mental workload l Lower vehicle speeds l Reducing headways l Greater brake pressure The information overload from cellular telephone. navigation and mobile office applications makes driver mediate the distraction from in-vehicle information system as well as several devices.

such as tactile or auditory information. or auditory and tactile information. n The subjects’ personality should be assessed before the experiment. l Which combination of the stimuli is the most efficient and the least demanding? n visual and auditory information. n Future work l The impact of distraction from other sensory stimuli.Limitations & Future work n Limitations l The result of subjective emotion evaluation may affected by the personality (stress vulnerable or patient) rather than the task difficulty. i D E A L A B 2323 . or visual and tactile information. l Simple primary task : driving task was performed in a straight course.

NASA-TLX i D E A L A B 2424 .

UWIST i D E A L A B 2525 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful