Objective: The aim of this study was to assess sensitivity of visual attention and driving performance for detecting changes in driver cognitive workload across different age groups.
Background: The literature shows mixed results concerning the sensitivity of gaze concentration metrics to variations in cognitive demand. No studies appear showing how age affects gaze allocation during cognitive demand.
Method: Recordings of drivers’ gaze and driving performance by individuals in their 20s, 40s, and 60s were captured in actual driving conditions during three levels of cognitive demand.
Results: Gaze concentration increased with task difficulty through the low and moderate levels of demand and then appeared to level out at the high demand level. At the moderate difficulty level, gaze concentration increased by 2.4 cm (≈2°) from the reference period. The degree of gaze concentration with added cognitive demand is not related to age in the relatively healthy drivers studied. Driving performance measures did not show a consistent relationship with the objective demand level.
Conclusion: Gaze concentration appears at low levels of cognitive demand prior to the appearance of marked decrements in driving control. There is no compelling evidence from this study that driving performance measures can be used to index differences in workload prior to capacity saturation.
Application: Drivers’ awareness of vehicle surroundings is incrementally affected by increases in cognitive demand. Developers of more advanced driver support systems should consider gaze concentration as a measure of driver cognitive workload. This recommendation is particularly relevant in light of the added benefits of gaze measurements for detecting visual demand.
AhlstromC.KircherK.KircherA. (2009). Considerations when calculating percent road center from eye movement data in driver distraction monitoring. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design (pp. 132–139). University of Iowa Public Policy Center, Iowa City, Iowa.
2.
EngströmJ.AustM. L.ViströmM. (2010). Effects of working memory load and repeated scenario exposure on emergency braking performance. Human Factors, 52, 551–559.
3.
EngströmJ.JohanssonE.ÖstlundJ. (2005). Effects of visual and cognitive load in real and simulated motorway driving. Transportation Research Part F, 8, 97–120.
4.
FolsteinM. F.FolsteinS. E.McHughP. R. (1975). Mini Mental State: A practical method for grading the cognitive state for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatry Research, 12, 189–198.
5.
GreenP. (2004, October). Driver distraction, telematics design, and workload managers: Safety issues and solutions (SAE Paper 2004-21-0022). Paper presented at the International Congress on Transportation Electronics (Convergence), Detroit, MI.
6.
HarblukJ. L.NoyY. I.TrbovichP. L.EizenmanM. (2007). An on-road assessment of cognitive distraction: Impacts on drivers’ visual behavior and braking performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39, 372–379.
7.
HatfieldJ.MurphyS. (2007). The effects of mobile phone use on pedestrian crossing behaviour at signalised and unsignalised intersections. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39, 197–205.
8.
HymanI. E.BossS. M.WiseB. M.MckenzieK. E.CaggianoJ. M. (2009). Did you see the unicycling clown? Inattentional blindness while walking and talking on a cell phone. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 597–607.
9.
KassS. J.KerstanS. C.StannyC. J. (2007). Effects of distraction and experience on situation awareness and simulated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 10, 321–329.
10.
LeeJ. D.ReganM. A.YoungK. L. (2009). What drives distraction? Distraction as a breakdown of multilevel control. In ReganM. A.LeeJ. D.YoungK. L. (Eds.), Driver distraction: Theory, effects, and mitigation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
11.
MayJ. G.KennedyR. S.WilliamsM. C.DunlapW. P.BrannanJ. R. (1990). Eye movements indices of mental workload. Acta Psychologica, 75, 75–89.
12.
MehlerB.ReimerB.CoughlinJ. F. (2012). Sensitivity of physiological measures for detecting systematic variations in cognitive demand from a working memory task: An on-road study across three age groups. Human Factors, 54, 396–412.
13.
MehlerB.ReimerB.CoughlinJ. F.DusekJ. A. (2009). The impact of incremental increases in cognitive workload on physiological arousal and performance in young adult drivers. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2138, 6–12.
14.
MehlerB.ReimerB.DusekJ. (2011). MIT AgeLab delayed digit recall task (n-back) (MIT AgeLab White Paper Number 2011-3B). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
15.
NunesL.RecarteM. A. (2002). Cognitive demands of hands free-free-phone conversation while driving. Transportation Research Part F, 5, 133–144.
16.
RantanenE. M.GoldbergJ. H. (1999). The effect of mental workload on the visual field size and shape. Ergonomics, 42, 816–834.
17.
RecarteM. A.NunesL. M. (2000). Effects of verbal and spatial-imagery tasks on eye fixations while driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 31–43.
18.
RecarteM. A.NunesL. M. (2003). Mental workload while driving: Effects on visual search, discrimination, and decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 119–137.
19.
ReimerB. (2009). Cognitive task complexity and the impact on drivers’ visual tunneling. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2138, 13–19.
20.
ReimerB.MehlerB. (2011). The impact of cognitive workload on physiological arousal in young adult drivers: A field study and simulation validation. Ergonomics, 54, 932–942.
21.
ReimerB.MehlerB.WangY.CoughlinJ. F. (2010). The impact of systematic variation of cognitive demand on drivers’ visual attention across multiple age groups. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting (pp. 2052–2056). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
22.
ReimerB.SodhiM. (2006). Detecting eye movements in dynamic environments. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 667–682.
23.
SodhiM.ReimerB.LlamazaresI. (2002). Glance analysis of driver eye movements to evaluate distraction. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 34, 529–538.
24.
StrayerD. L.DrewsF. A. (2004). Profiles in driver distraction: Effect of cell phone conversation on younger and older drivers. Human Factors, 46, 640–649.
25.
StrayerD. L.DrewsF. A.JohnstonW. A. (2003). Cell phone induced perceptual impairments during simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 9, 23–32.
26.
VictorT. W.HarblukJ. L.EngströmJ. A. (2005). Sensitivity of eye-movement measures to in-task difficulty. Transportation Research Part F, 8, 167–190.
