The interaction between the driver and the in-vehicle information system (IVIS) significantly impacts both the driver’s behavior and driving safety. This research aims to explore the influence of task complexity in touchscreen-based IVIS on driving behavior and mental workload. Based on the driving simulation, a test was designed for drivers to manually operate the IVIS under car-following conditions. Driving behavior and eye movement data were collected under different manual touchscreen task complexities. The effects of driver gender, driving experience, and the number of hands-on operations on driving behavior and mental workload were investigated by analysis of variance. A quantitative model of driver mental workload was constructed using exploratory factor analysis. The validity of this model was confirmed through the NASA-TLX scale. Additionally, a driver mental workload discrimination model was constructed using the Bayes discrimination method to achieve an accurate classification of mental workload. The results show that IVIS touchscreen operation tasks significantly affect driving behavior. The quantitative model, based on driving behavior and eye movement indicators, facilitates the evaluation of the driver’s mental workload under the influence of manual IVIS touchscreen operation tasks. Variables such as the driver’s gender, driving experience, and the number of hands-on operations significantly affect mental workload. The driver mental workload discrimination model correctly discriminated 87.0% of driver test samples. Cross-validation results showed an accuracy rate of 84.30%, indicating the model’s high precision in discriminating mental workload.
ReimerBMehlerBWangY, et al. A field study on the impact of variations in short-term memory demands on drivers’ visual attention and driving performance across three age groups. Hum Factors2012; 54(3): 454–468.
2.
SodnikJDickeCTomažičS, et al. A user study of auditory versus visual interfaces for use while driving. Int J Hum Comput Stud2008; 66(5): 318–332.
3.
KohlJGrossAHenningM, et al. Driver glance behavior towards displayed images on in-vehicle information systems under real driving conditions. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2020; 70: 163–174.
4.
RanneyTA.Driver distraction: a review of the current state-of-knowledge. 2008.
5.
NilssonHMullaartMStrandN, et al. The effects of information relevancy on driving behavior: a simulator study on professional bus drivers. Cogn Technol Work2021; 23: 429–437.
6.
BeckDJungJParkJ, et al. A study on user experience of automotive HUD systems: contexts of information use and user-perceived design improvement points. Int J Hum Comput Interact2019; 35(20): 1936–1946.
7.
DingusTAGuoFLeeS, et al. Driver crash risk factors and prevalence evaluation using naturalistic driving data. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2016; 113(10): 2636–2641.
8.
Oviedo-TrespalaciosOHaqueMMKingM, et al. Understanding the impacts of mobile phone distraction on driving performance: a systematic review. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol2016; 72: 360–380.
9.
CarstenOBrookhuisK.Issues arising from the HASTE experiments. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2005; 8(2): 191–196.
10.
IrwinCMonementSDesbrowB.The influence of drinking, texting, and eating on simulated driving performance. Traffic Inj Prev2015; 16(2): 116–123.
11.
MaYShiYFuR, et al. Impact of driver’s distracted driving time on vehicle lane departure. J Jilin Univ2015; 45: 1095–1101.
12.
SimmonsSMHicksACairdJK.Safety-critical event risk associated with cell phone tasks as measured in naturalistic driving studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Accid Anal Prev2016; 87: 161–169.
13.
Onate-VegaDOviedo-TrespalaciosOKingMJ.How drivers adapt their behaviour to changes in task complexity: the role of secondary task demands and road environment factors. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2020; 71: 145–156.
14.
PratFGrasMPlanesM, et al. Self-reported distraction-related collisions: mundane distractions are reported more often than technology-related secondary tasks. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2018; 59: 124–134.
15.
MaYGuGYinB, et al. Support vector machines for the identification of real-time driving distraction using in-vehicle information systems. J Transp Saf Secur2022; 14(2): 232–255.
16.
ZhongQGuoGZhiJ.Address inputting while driving: a comparison of four alternative text input methods on in-vehicle navigation displays usability and driver distraction. Traffic Inj Prev2022; 23(4): 163–168.
MetzBSchömigNKrügerH-P.Attention during visual secondary tasks in driving: adaptation to the demands of the driving task. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2011; 14(5): 369–380.
19.
ReyesMLLeeJD.Effects of cognitive load presence and duration on driver eye movements and event detection performance. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2008; 11(6): 391–402.
20.
MaJLiJGongZ.Evaluation of driver distraction from in-vehicle information systems: a simulator study of interaction modes and secondary tasks classes on eight production cars. Int J Ind Ergon2022; 92: 103380.
21.
WuSLiuXSunH.Influence of use of in-vehicle information device on driving behavior. China Saf Sci J2018; 28(1): 14.
22.
FengXCaoLZhangY, et al. The effects of using taxi-hailing application on driving performance. Int J Adv Robot Syst2019; 16(1): 1729881419830216.
23.
LiRChenYVShaC, et al. Effects of interface layout on the usability of in-vehicle information systems and driving safety. Displays2017; 49: 124–132.
24.
LeeSCYoonSHJiYG.Modeling task completion time of in-vehicle information systems while driving with keystroke level modeling. Int J Ind Ergon2019; 72: 252–260.
25.
StrayerDLCooperJMGoetheRM, et al. Assessing the visual and cognitive demands of in-vehicle information systems. Cogn Res Princ Implic2019; 4: 1–22.
26.
LiuXSunHGaoY, et al. Exploring the performance of click and slide gestures on large in-vehicle touch screens. Appl Ergon2022; 99: 103613.
27.
HickmanJSHanowskiRJ.An assessment of commercial motor vehicle driver distraction using naturalistic driving data. Traffic Inj Prev2012; 13(6): 612–619.
28.
PengYBoyleLN.Driver’s adaptive glance behavior to in-vehicle information systems. Accid Anal Prev2015; 85: 93–101.
29.
Society of Automotive Engineers. Navigation and route guidance function accessibility while driving. SAE J2364, 2004.
30.
AksanNAndersonSWDawsonJ, et al. Cognitive functioning differentially predicts different dimensions of older drivers’ on-road safety. Accid Anal Prev2015; 75: 236–244.
31.
AdrianJPostalVMoessingerM, et al. Personality traits and executive functions related to on-road driving performance among older drivers. Accid Anal Prev2011; 43(5): 1652–1659.
32.
DornLMatthewsG.Two further studies of personality correlates of driver stress. Pers Individ Dif1992; 13(8): 949–951.
33.
KimuraRTanakaTYoshiharaY, et al. Estimating driver personality traits from on-road driving data. arXiv preprint arXiv:230210898, 2023.
34.
MaY-lGuG-fGaoY-e, et al. Driver distraction judging model under in-vehicle information system operation based on driving performance. China J Highw Transp2016; 29(4): 123.
35.
GeH-mZhengM-qLyuN-c, et al. Review on driving distraction. J Traffic Transp Eng2021; 21(2): 38–55.
36.
MaYHuBChanC-Y, et al. Distractions intervention strategies for in-vehicle secondary tasks: an on-road test assessment of driving task demand based on real-time traffic environment. Transp Res D Transp Environ2018; 63: 747–754.
37.
JiaoS-JLiuL-YLiuQ.A hybrid deep learning model for recognizing actions of distracted drivers. Sensors2021; 21(21): 7424.
38.
MattonNPaubelP-VPumaS.Toward the use of pupillary responses for pilot selection. Hum Factors2022; 64(3): 555–567.
39.
ChenWSawaragiTHiraokaT.Comparing driver reaction and mental workload of visual and auditory take-over request from perspective of driver characteristics and eye-tracking metrics. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2023; 97: 396–410.
40.
HuangLBianYZhaoX, et al. Quantitatively exploring the relationship between eye movement and driving behavior under the effect of different complex diagrammatic guide signs. Cogn Technol Work2020; 22(2): 373–388.
41.
ChiharaTKobayashiFSakamotoJ.Estimation of mental workload during automobile driving based on eye-movement measurement with a visible light camera. Trans JSME2020; 86(881): 2020. (in Japanese)
42.
ZhaoXMaYWanP, et al. Research on influence of emotion on novice drivers’ visual characteristics. China Saf Sci J2022; 32(1): 34.
43.
HorswillMSTaylorKNewnamS, et al. Even highly experienced drivers benefit from a brief hazard perception training intervention. Accid Anal Prev2013; 52: 100–110.
44.
SmithSSHorswillMSChambersB, et al. Hazard perception in novice and experienced drivers: the effects of sleepiness. Accid Anal Prev2009; 41(4): 729–733.
45.
LeeSCKimYWJiYG.Effects of visual complexity of in-vehicle information display: age-related differences in visual search task in the driving context. Appl Ergon2019; 81: 102888.
46.
AngeliniLBaumgartnerJCarrinoF, et al. (eds). Comparing gesture, speech and touch interaction modalities for in-vehicle infotainment systems. Actes de la 28e conférence francophone sur l’Interaction Homme-Machine on-IHM’16, 25-28 octobre 2016, Fribourg, Suisse; 2016: 25-28 Octobre 2016.
47.
HartSGStavelandLE.Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol1988; 52: 139–183.
48.
GjoreskiMKolenikTKnezT, et al. Datasets for cognitive load inference using wearable sensors and psychological traits. Appl Sci2020; 10(11): 3843.
49.
Von JanczewskiNKrausJEngelnA, et al. A subjective one-item measure based on NASA-TLX to assess cognitive workload in driver-vehicle interaction. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2022; 86: 210–225.
50.
ZhaoXDuYYangL, et al. Effects of road type and IVIS task type on driver behavior and driving performance in agricultural tractors. Int J Hum Comput Interact2024; 40: 3159–3172.
51.
AnttilaVLuomaJ.Surrogate in-vehicle information systems and driver behaviour in an urban environment: a field study on the effects of visual and cognitive load. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2005; 8(2): 121–133.
52.
KreussleinMMorgensternTPetzoldtT, et al. Characterising mobile phone calls while driving on limited-access roads based on SHRP 2 naturalistic driving data. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2020; 70: 208–222.
53.
HeldMRiegerJWBorstJP.Multitasking while driving: central bottleneck or problem state interference?Hum Factors2024; 66: 1564–1582.
54.
McDonaldADFerrisTKWienerTA.Classification of driver distraction: a comprehensive analysis of feature generation, machine learning, and input measures. Hum Factors2020; 62(6): 1019–1035.
55.
McDonaldCCSommersMSFargoJD, et al. Simulated driving performance, self-reported driving behaviors, and mental health symptoms in adolescent novice drivers. Nurs Res2018; 67(3): 202.
56.
KaçaGİzmitligilTKoyuncuM, et al. How well do the traffic psychological assessment systems predict on-road driving behaviour?Appl Cogn Psychol2021; 35(5): 1321–1337.
57.
PrzepiorkaAMHillTBlachnioAP, et al. Psychometric properties of the Driving Behaviour Scale (DBS) among polish drivers. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2020; 73: 29–37.
58.
DelhommePGheorghiuA.Perceived stress, mental health, organizational factors, and self-reported risky driving behaviors among truck drivers circulating in France. J Saf Res2021; 79: 341–351.
59.
KarrasMCsillikADelhommeP.Empathy, impulsiveness, and sensation seeking as mediators between primary psychopathic traits and driving behaviors in French driving offenders. J Clin Psychol2023; 79(3): 886–901.
60.
PratFPlanesMGrasM, et al. An observational study of driving distractions on urban roads in Spain. Accid Anal Prev2015; 74: 8–16.
61.
Ramezani-KhansariETabibiMMoghadas NejadF, et al. Comparing the effect of age, gender, and desired speed on car-following behavior by using driving simulator. J Adv Transp2021; 2021: 1–7.
62.
PopeCNBellTRStavrinosD.Mechanisms behind distracted driving behavior: the role of age and executive function in the engagement of distracted driving. Accid Anal Prev2017; 98: 123–129.
