Search Results

This study investigated driver glances while engaging in infotainment tasks in a stationary vehicle while surrogate driving: watching a driving video recorded from a driver’s viewpoint and projected on a large screen, performing a lane-tracking task, and performing the Tactile Detection Response Task (TDRT) to measure attentional effects of secondary tasks on event detection and response. Twenty-four participants were seated in a 2014 Toyota Corolla production vehicle with the navigation system option. They performed the lane-tracking task using the vehicle’s steering wheel, fitted with a laser pointer to indicate wheel movement on the driving video. Participants simultaneously performed the TDRT and a variety of infotainment tasks, including Manual and Mixed-Mode versions of Destination Entry and Cancel, Contact Dialing, Radio Tuning, Radio Preset selection, and other Manual tasks. Participants also completed the 0-and 1-Back pure auditory-vocal tasks.

There is little agreement in the field of driving safety as to how to define cognitive distraction, much less how to measure it. Without a definition and metric, it is impossible to make scientific and engineering progress on determining the extent to which cognitive distraction causes crashes, and ways to mitigate it if it does. We show here that different studies are inconsistent in their definitions of cognitive distraction. For example, some definitions do not include cellular conversation, while others do. Some definitions confound cognitive distraction with visual distraction, or cognitive distraction with cognitive workload. Other studies define cognitive distraction in terms of a state of the driver, and others in terms of tasks that may distract the driver. It is little wonder that some studies find that cognitive distraction is a negligible factor in causing crashes, while others assert that cognitive distraction causes more crashes than drunk driving.