Cognitive distraction has been identified as a critical factor for automobile crashes in the United States. Previous research indicates that cognitive tasks such as phone conversations may take attention away from the driving task, degrading driving performance. One continuing issue with cognitive distraction research is establishing a reliable, continuous, online measure of driver workload. Blink rate is a potential candidate for such a measure. The present driving simulator experiment examines whether blink rate is sensitive to variations of driver workload while controlling the vehicle. Participants will navigate simulated environments while performing the auditory 0-and 2-back task with their blink and driving performance data continuously recorded during the drive. Blink and performance data will be compared not only between the different workload conditions, but also to predictions of a human driver performance workload model based on the Improved Performance Research Integration Tool (IMPRINT), developed by the US Army Research Laboratory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BenedettoS.PedrottiM.MininL.BaccinoT.ReA.MontanariR. (2011). Driver workload and eye blink duration. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 14(3), 199-208.
2.
BenedettoS.LobjoisR.FaureV.DangN. T.PedrottiM.CaroS. (2014). A comparison of immersive and interactive motorcycle simulator configurations. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 23, 88–100.
3.
FaureV.LobjoisR.BenguiguiN. (2016). The effects of driving environment complexity and dual tasking on drivers’ mental workload and eye blink behavior. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 40, 78–90.
4.
GoldingJ. F. (1998) Motion sickness susceptibility questionnaire revised and its relationship to other forms of sickness. Brain Research Bulletin, 47, 507-516.
5.
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(2), 372-379.
6.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in psychology (vol. 52, pp. 139-183). North-Holland.
7.
HeJ.BecicE.LeeY. C.McCarleyJ. S. (2011). Mind wandering behind the wheel: performance and oculomotor correlates. Human factors, 53, 13-21.
8.
HolmqvistK.NyströmM.AnderssonR.DewhurstR.JarodzkaH.Van de WeijerJ. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. OUP Oxford.
9.
HorreyW. J.WickensC. D.ConsalusK. P. (2006). Modeling drivers' visual attention allocation while interacting with in-vehicle technologies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 67.
10.
ISO. (2016). Road vehicles–Transport information and control systems–Detection Response Task (DRT) for assessing attentional effects of cognitive load in driving (ISO 17488).
11.
JoJ.LeeS. J.KimJ.JungH. G.ParkK. R. (2011). Vision-based method for detecting driver drowsiness and distraction in driver monitoring system. Optical Engineering, 50(12), 127202.
12.
KandemirC.HandleyH. A. H.ThompsonD. (2018). A workload model to evaluate distracters and driver’s aids. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 63, 18–36.
13.
KennedyR.LaneN.BerbaumK.LilienthalM. (1993). Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 203-220.
14.
McIntireL. K.McKinleyR. A.GoodyearC.McIntireJ. P. (2014). Detection of vigilance performance using eye blinks. Applied Ergonomics, 45(2 PB), 354–362.
15.
MehlerB.ReimerB.DusekJ. A. (2011). MIT AgeLab delayed digit recall task (n-back). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 17.
16.
MitchellD. K.SammsC. L.HenthornT. (2004). Workload Analysis of Two-Versus Three-Soldier Crew for the Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon (NLOS-C) System (ARL-TR-3406). Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.
17.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation (2015). Traffic safety facts: Distracted Driving2013 (DOT HS 812 132).
18.
OlsenP. (2018). Cadillac tops Tesla in consumer reports’ first ranking of automated driving systems. Consumer Reports.
19.
PedrottiM.MirzaeiM. A.TedescoA.ChardonnetJ. R.MérienneF.BenedettoS.BaccinoT. (2014). Automatic Stress Classification With Pupil Diameter Analysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30(3), 220–236.
20.
RecarteM. Á.PérezE.ConchilloÁ.NunesL. M. (2008). Mental workload and visual impairment: Differences between pupil, blink, and subjective rating. The Spanish journal of psychology, 11(2), 374-385.
21.
SavageS. W.PotterD. D.TatlerB. W. (2013). Does preoccupation impair hazard perception? A simultaneous EEG and Eye Tracking study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 17, 52–62.
22.
SternJ. A.WalrathL. C.GoldsteinR. (1984). The Endogenous Eyeblink. Psychophysiology, vol. 21, pp. 22–33.
23.
StojmenovaK.SodnikJ. (2018). Detection-Response Task—Uses and Limitations. Sensors, 18(2), 594.
24.
StrayerD. L.DrewsF. A.JohnstonW. A. (2003). Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. Journal of experimental psychology: Applied, 9(1), 23.
25.
StrayerD. L.WatsonJ. M.DrewsF. A. (2011). Cognitive distraction while multitasking in the automobile. In Psychology of learning and motivation (vol. 54, pp. 29-58). Academic Press.
26.
StrayerD. L.TurrillJ.CooperJ. M.ColemanJ. R.Medeiros-WardN.BiondiF. (2015). Assessing cognitive distraction in the automobile. Human factors, 57(8), 1300-1324.
27.
TatlerB. W.HayhoeM. M.LandM. F.BallardD. H. (2011). Eye guidance in natural vision: reinterpreting salience. Journal of Vision, 11(5), Article 5.
28.
TsaiY. F.ViirreE.StrychaczC.ChaseB.JungT. P. (2007). Task performance and eye activity: predicting behavior relating to cognitive workload. Aviation, space, and environmental medicine, 78(5), B176-B185.
29.
VeltmanJ. A.GaillardA. W. K. (1996). Physiological indices of workload in a simulated flight task. Biological psychology, 42(3), 323-342.
