In some previous simulator studies, we showed that drivers, engaged in a secondary in-vehicle task at different display separations, were able to buffer some aspects of the driving task (e.g., vehicle control), but not others (e.g., hazard response; Horrey & Wickens, 2002, Horrey, Alexander, & Wickens, 2003). We speculate that this pattern of results may be a result of effective time-sharing between the ambient visual task of vehicle control and the focal visual in-vehicle task, but task interference between the in-vehicle task and the focal task of hazard detection and identification. Alternatively, drivers may be using an optimal scanning strategy that allows them to effectively monitor both the roadway and the in-vehicle device. In this paper, we detail some of the theoretical background, describe some relevant research, and present a model of scanning behavior.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenR. W.ClementW. F.JexH. R. (1969). Research on display scanning, sampling, and reconstruction using separate main and secondary tracking tasks (Tech Report 170-2). Moffett Field, CA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
2.
DingusT. A.AntinJ. F.HulseM. C.WierwilleW. W. (1989). Attentional demand requirements of an automobile moving-map navigation system. Transportation Research, 23A(4), 301–315.
3.
GellatlyA. W.KleissJ. A. (2000). Visual attention demand evaluation of conventional and multifunction in-vehicle information systems. Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress (pp. 3:282–3:285). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
4.
HadaH. (1994). Drivers' visual attention to in-vehicle displays: Effects of display location and road type (Tech Report UMTRI-94-9). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute.
5.
HorreyW. J.WickensC. D. (2002). Driving and side task performance: The effects of display clutter, separation, and modality (Tech Report AHFD-02-13/GM-02-2). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Human Factors Division.
6.
HorreyW. J.AlexanderA. L.WickensC. D. (2003). Does workload modulate the effects of in-vehicle display location on concurrent driving performance? (Tech Report AHFD-03-1/GM-03-1). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Human Factors Division.
7.
LambleD.LaaksoM.SummalaH. (1999). Detection thresholds in car following situations and peripheral vision: Implications for positioning of visually demanding in-car displays. Ergonomics, 42(6), 807–815.
8.
LansdownT. C. (2002). Individual differences during driver secondary task performance: Verbal protocol and visual allocation findings. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 655–662.
9.
LansdownT. C.FowkesM. (1998). An investigation into the utility of various metrics for the evaluation of driver information systems. In GaleA. G. (Eds.), Vision in vehicles –VI (pp. 215–224). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
10.
LeibowitzH. W.OwensD. A.PostR. B. (1982). Nighttime driving and visual degradation (SAE Tech Paper #820414). Warrendale, PA: Society for Automotive Engineering.
11.
LeibowitzH. W.PostR. B. (1982). The two modes of processing concept and some implications. In BeckJ. (Ed.), Organization and representation in perception (pp. 343–363). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
LevisonW. H.ElkindJ. I.WardJ. L. (1971). Studies of multi-variable manual control systems: A model for task interference (Tech Report NASA CR-1746). Washington, DC: NASA.
13.
McRuerD. T. (1980). Human dynamics in man-machine systems. Automatica16, 237–253.
14.
MorayN. (1986). Monitoring behavior and supervisory control. In BoffK.R.KaufmanL.ThomasJ. P. (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance (Vol. 2) (pp. 40.1–40.51). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
15.
MossS. M. (1964). Tracking with a differential brightness display: II. Peripheral Tracking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, 249–254.
16.
MourantR. RRockwellT. H. (1970). Mapping eye-movement patterns to the visual scene in driving: An exploratory study. Human Factors, 12(1), 81–87.
17.
MourantR. RRockwellT. H. (1972). Strategies of visual search by novice and experienced drivers. Human Factors, 14(4), 325–335.
18.
PrevicF. H. (1998). The neuropsychology of 3-D space. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 123–164.
19.
PrevicF. H. (2000). Neuropsychological guidelines for aircraft control stations. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, March/April, 81-88.
20.
SendersJ. W. (1983). Visual sampling processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
SochackiJ.WickensC. D. (1997). Display location and task-hemispheric integrity effects on HUD display designs (Tech Report ARL-97-2/FAA-97-2). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.
22.
SummalaH. (1998). Forced peripheral vision driving paradigm: Evidence for the hypothesis that car drivers learn to keep in lane with peripheral vision. In GaleA. G. (Eds.), Vision in vehicles–VI (pp. 51–60). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
23.
SummalaH.LambleD.LaaksoM. (1998). Driving experience and perception of the lead car's braking when looking at in-car targets. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(4), 401–407.
24.
SummalaH.NieminenT.PuntoM. (1996). Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. Human Factors, 38(3), 442–451.
25.
TsimhoniO.GreenP. (2001). Visual demands of driving and the execution of display-intensive in-vehicle tasks. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting (pp. 1586–1590). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
26.
WickensC. D. (1986). The effects of control dynamics on performance. In BoffK.R.KaufmanL.ThomasJ. P. (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance (Vol. 2) (pp. 39.1–39.60). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
27.
WickensC. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 159–177.
28.
WeinsteinL. F.WickensC. D. (1992). Use of nontraditional flight displays for the reduction of central visual overload in the cockpit. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 2(2), 121–142.
29.
WierwilleW. W. (1993). Visual and manual demands of in-car controls and displays. In PeacockB.KarwowskiW. (Eds.), Automotive Ergonomics (pp. 299–320). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
30.
WierwilleW. W.TijerinaL. (1998). Modelling the relationship between driver in-vehicle visual demands and accident occurrence. In GaleA. G. (Eds.), Vision in vehicles–VI (pp. 233–243). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
