Driving simulator validation is an important and ongoing process. Advances in in-vehicle human machine interfaces (HMI) mean there is a continuing need to reevaluate the validity of use cases of driving simulators relative to real world driving. Along with this, our tools for evaluating driver demand are evolving, and these approaches and measures must also be considered in evaluating the validity of a driving simulator for particular purposes. We compare driver glance behavior during HMI interactions with a production level multi-modal infotainment system on-road and in a driving simulator. In glance behavior analysis using traditional glance metrics, as well as a contemporary modified AttenD measure, we see evidence for strong relative validity and instances of absolute validity of the simulator compared to on-road driving.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlaauwG.J.1982. Driving experience and task demands in simulator and instrumented car: a validation study. Human Factors, 24, 473-486.
2.
FisherD. L.RizzoM.CairdJ.LeeJ. D. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of Driving Simulation for Engineering, Medicine, and Psychology. CRC Press.
3.
KlüverM.HerrigelC.HeinrichC.SchönerH.HechtH. (2016). The behavioral validity of dual-task driving performance in fixed and moving base driving simulators. Transportation Research Part F, 37, 78-96.
4.
PerezM.OwensJ.ViitaD.AngellA.RanneyT. A.BaldwinG. H. S.ParmerE.MartinJ.GarrottW. R.MazzaeE. N. (2013). Radio tuning effects on visual and driving performance – Simulator and test track studies. (Report No. DOT HS 811 781). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
5.
KircherK.AhlströmC. (2009). Issues related to the driver distraction detection algorithm AttenD. First International Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention. Gothenburg, Sweden.
6.
LiangY.LeeJ. D.YekhshatyanL. (2012). How dangerous is looking away from the road? Algorithms predict crash risk from glance patterns in naturalistic driving. Human Factors, 54(6), 1104–1116.
7.
MehlerB.KiddD.ReimerB.ReaganI.DobresJ.McCarttA. (2016). Multi-modal assessment of on-road demand of voice and manual phone calling and voice navigation entry across two embedded vehicle systems. Ergonomics, 59(3), 344-367
8.
MehlerB.ReimerB.DobresJ.CoughlinJ.F. (2015, Nov.28). Assessing the Demands of Voice Based In-Vehicle Interfaces: Phase II Experiment 3 - 2015 Toyota Corolla (2015b). MIT AgeLab Technical Report No. 2015-14. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
9.
McWilliamsT.WardN.MehlerB.ReimerB. (2018). Assessing driving simulator validity: a comparison of multi-modal smartphone interactions across simulated and field environments. Transportation Research Record, 2672(37), 164-171.
10.
NHTSA (2013). Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices (No. NHTSA-2010-0053). Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
11.
ReimerB.MehlerB. (2011). The impact of cognitive workload on physiological arousal in young adult drivers: a field study and simulation validation. Ergonomics, 54(10), 932-942.
12.
SantosJ.MeratN.MoutaSBrookhuisK.de WaardD. (2005). The interaction between driving and in-vehicle information systems: Comparison of results from laboratory, simulator and real-world studies. Transportation Research Part F, 8, 135-146
13.
SeamanS.LeeJ.AngellL.MehlerB.SeppeltB.ReimerB. (2016, October). Exploring generalizability of field experiment radio tasks with naturalistic driving data: A comparison with SHRP2 NEST. Adjunct Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Automotive UI’16), Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 111-116.
14.
SeamanS.LeeJ.SeppeltB.AngellL.MehlerB.ReimerB. (2017, June). It’s all in the timing: using the AttenD algorithm to assess texting in the NEST naturalistic driving database. Proceedings of the 9th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design, Manchester Village, Vermont, USA.
15.
SeppeltB.SeamanS.AngellL.MehlerB.ReimerB. (2018, September). Differentiating Cognitive Load Using a Modified Version of AttenD. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI ’17), Oldenburg, Germany.
16.
SeppeltB.SeamanS.AngellL.MehlerB.ReimerB. (2018, October). Assessing the effect of in-vehicle task interactions on attention management in safety-critical events. In VictorT.BruyasM.P.ReganM.BrusqueC.FortA.JallaisC. (Eds.), 2018. Proceedings of the 6th Driver Distraction and Inattention conference, Gothenburg, Sweden.
17.
SeppeltB.SeamanS.LeeJ.AngellL.S.MehlerB.ReimerB. (2017). Glass half-full: use of on-road glance metrics to differentiate crashes from near-crashes in the 100-car data. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 107, 48-62.
18.
VictorT.DozzaJ.BärgmanJ.BodaC.EngströmJ.FlannaganC.LeeJ.MarkkulaG. (2014). Analysis of naturalistic driving study data: safer glances, driver inattention, and crash risk. SHRP 2 Report (S2-S08A-RW-1). Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
19.
WangY.MehlerB.ReimerB.LammersV.D’AmbrosioL.CoughlinJ. (2010). The validity of driving simulation for assessing differences between in-vehicle informational interfaces: a comparison with field testing. Ergonomics, 53(3), 404-420.
20.
YanX.Adbel-AtyM.RadwanE.WangX.ChilakapatiP. (2008). Validating a driving simulator using surrogate safety measures. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40, 274–288.
