Objective: To develop measures of driver interaction with in-vehicle devices through capacity analysis.
Background: Common measures of driver behavior focus on the mean values of measures that do not consider temporal distribution of attention. Capacity analysis can quantify the temporal profile of a drivers' capacity and the resulting task efficiency.
Methods: Fifty participants performed search tasks on either an MP3 player or its aftermarket controller in a medium-fidelity driving simulator. A capacity analysis used a hazard function to describe tasks according to their probability of completion.
Results: Capacity coefficients, calculated as the ratio of two integrated hazard functions, were not constant over time indicating that the probability of task completion is dynamic and must be described with more than a measure of the central tendency of distribution, such as mean task completion time.
Conclusion: Along with other commonly used driving performance metrics, capacity analysis can reveal task completion dynamics that are often neglected with reaction time measures, providing insight into how drivers direct their attention away from the road to complete secondary tasks.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AngellL.AuflickJ.AustriaP. A.KocharD.TijerinaL.BieverW. (2006). Driver workload metrics project: Task 2 final report (Tech. Rep. #DOT-HS-810–635). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
2.
ChisholmS. L.CairdJ. K.LockhartL. (2008). The effects of practice with MP3 players on driving performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40, 704–713.
3.
CrislerM. C.BrooksJ. O.OgleJ. H.GuirlC. D.AlluriP.DixonK. K. (2008). Effect of wireless communication and entertainment devices on simulated driving performance. Transportation Research Record, vol. 2069, (pp. 48–54), Washington DC: Transportation Research Board.
4.
HorreyW.J.WickensC.D. (2007). In-vehicle glance duration: Distributions, tails and model of crash risk. Transportation Research Record, vol. 2018, (pp. 22–28), Washington DC: Transportation Research Board.
5.
HugenschmidtC. E.HayasakaS.PeifferA. M.LaurientiP. J. (2010). Applying capacity analyses to psychophysical evaluation of multisensory interactions. Information Fusion, 11, 12–20.
6.
MaglioP. P.WengerM. J.CopelandA. M. (2008). Evidence for the role of self-priming in epistemic action: Expertise and the effective use of memory. Acta Psychologica, 127, 72–88.
7.
McCarttA. T.HellingaL. A.BratimanK. A. (2006). Cell phones and driving: Review of research. Traffic Injury Prevention, 7, 89–106.
8.
PatchingG. R.QuinlanP. T. (2004). Cross-modal integration of simple auditory and visual events. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(1), 131–140.
9.
ReganM. A.LeeJ. D.YoungK. L. (2008). Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects and Mitigation. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
10.
SalvucciD. D.MarkleyD.ZuberM.BrumbyD. P. (2007). iPod distraction: Effects of portable music-player use on driver performance. In the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 243–250). New York, NY: ACM Press.
11.
WengerM. J.GibsonB. S. (2004). Using hazard functions to assess changes in processing capacity in an attentional cuing paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(4), 708–719.
12.
WengerM. J.TownsendJ. T. (2000). Basic response time tools for studying general processing capacity in attention, perception, and cognition. The Journal of General Psychology, 127(1), 67–99.
