The current work examines a methodology developed for assessing driver attention management using high-precision eye glances towards safety-relevant driving information. The Task Analysis Eye Movement Overlay (TAEMO) method uses task analyses, video recordings of a driving scenario, and eye glance data toward visual keys that drivers sample during the driving scenario to directly measure driver engagement. This methodology has applications for evaluating infrastructure design, driver impairment assessment, driver training, driver distraction research, and vehicle human-machine interface (HMI) system design.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AngellL.AichS.AntinJ.WotringB. (2015). An exploration of driver behavior during turns at intersections (for drivers in different age groups) (Report No. 17-UM-047). Blacksburg, VA: National Surface Transportation Safety Center for Excellence.
2.
BaoS.BoyleL. N. (2009). Age-related differences in visual scanning at median-divided highway intersections in rural areas. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(1), 146–152.
3.
CampbellJ. L.LichtyM. G.BrownJ. L.RichardC. M.GravingJ.GrahamJ.… HarwoodD. (2012). Human factors guidelines for road system, second edition (NCHRP Report 600). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
4.
CasnerS. M.SchoolerJ. W. (2015). Vigilance impossible: Diligence, distraction, and daydreaming all lead to failures in a practical monitoring task. Consciousness and Cognition, 35, 33–41.
5.
DivekarG.SamuelS.ThomasF. D.KorbelakK.BlombergR. D.FisherD. L.BoardT. R. (2016). On-road evaluation of hazard perception training program comparing eye tracking and commentary driving techniques. In Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting. Washington, DC.
6.
DonmezB.BoyleL. N.LeeJ. D. (2007). Safety implications of providing real-time feedback to distracted drivers. Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 39(3), 581–590.
7.
GibsonJ. J.CollegeS.CrooksL. E. (1938). A theoretical field-analysis of automobile-driving. The American Journal of Psychology, 51(3), 453–471.
8.
KirchnerW. (1958). Age difference in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(4), 352–358.
9.
KlauerS. G.DingusT. a.NealeV. L.SudweeksJ. D.RamseyD. J. (2006). The impact of driver inattention on near crash/crash risk: An analysis using the 100-car naturalistic driving study data (Report No. DOT HS 810 594). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
10.
LennemanJ.ToyodaH.DomeyerJ. (2017). A new approach to visual attention allocation assessment for automated driving research. In Society of Automotive Engineers of Japan.
11.
LichtyM. G.RichardC. M. (2012). A task-analytic approach for estimating driver task demands on specific roadway sections. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
12.
MacDonaldW.A.HoffmannE. R. (1984). Drivers’ awareness of traffic sign information (Report No. AIR 382-1). Vermont South, Victoria: Australian Road Research Board.
13.
McKnightA. J.AdamsB. B. (1970). Driver education task analysis. Volume II: Task analysis methods. Final report (Report No. DOT-HS-800-368). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
14.
MorganJ.HancockP. A. (2009). Estimations in driving. In CastroC. (Ed.), Human Factors of Visual and Cognitive Performance in Driving (pp. 51–62). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Company.
15.
MourantR. R.RockwellT. H. (1970). Mapping eye-movement patterns to the visual scene in driving: An exploratory study. Human Factors, 12(1), 81–87.
16.
MourantR. R.RockwellT. H. (1972). Strategies of visual search by novice and experienced drivers. Human Factors, 14(4), 325–335.
17.
ShinarD. (2008). Looks are (almost) everything: where drivers look to get information. Human Factors, 50(3), 380–384.
18.
TatlerB. W.HayhoeM. M.LandM. F.BallardD. H. (2011). Eye guidance in natural vision: Reinterpreting salience. Journal of Vision, 11(5), 1–32.
19.
ThomasF. D.KorbelakK. T.DivekarG. U.BlombergR. D.RomoserM. R. E.FisherD. L. (2017). Evaluation of an updated version of the risk awareness and perception training program for young drivers (Report No. DOT HS 812 379). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
20.
VictorT. W.TivestenE.GustavssonP.JohanssonJ.SangbergF.Ljung AustM. (2018). Automation expectation mismatch: Incorrect prediction despite eyes on threat and hands on wheel. Human Factors, 60(8), 1095–1116.
21.
ZeebK.BuchnerA.SchraufM. (2015). What determines the take-over time? An integrated model approach of driver take-over after automated driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 78, 212–221.
