The ISO 17488 standard Detection Response Task (DRT) has been validated as an effective tool for measuring fluctuations in cognitive workload while driving and performing secondary tasks. This research evaluated the possibility of consolidating a dual stimulus DRT to a single remote LED stimulus to concurrently measure visual and cognitive demand. Hit rate and reaction times to a remote LED stimulus and an ISO standard vibrotactor stimulus were compared for three in-vehicles tasks: a single task baseline, a cognitively demanding task, and a visually demanding task. Analyses showed that the remote LED and vibrotactor were equally sensitive to cognitive load, while the remote LED was more sensitive to visual load. We suggest the remote LED DRT system serves as a cost-effective, practical, sensitive method to concurrently assess cognitive and visual demand.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AngellL.PerezM.GarrottW. R. (2013). Explanatory material about the definition of a task used in NHTSA’s driver distraction guidelines, and task examples. (Report No. DOT HS 811 858). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
2.
AtchleyP.TranA.V.SalehinejadM.A. (2017). Constructing a publically available distracted driving database and research tool. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 99, 306-311.
3.
CastroS.CooperJ.StrayerD. (2016). Validating Two Assessment Strategies for Visual and Cognitive Load in a Simulated Driving Task. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60(1), 1899-1903.
4.
CooperJ. M.CastroS. C.StrayerD. L. (2016). Extending the Detection Response Task to Simultaneously Measure Cognitive and Visual Task Demands. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60(1), 1962-1966.
5.
EngströmJ.JohanssonE.ÖstlundJ. (2005). Effects of visual and cognitive load in real and simulated motorway driving.
6.
GrahamJ. W.TaylorB. J.OlchowskiA. E.CumsilleP. E. (2006). Planned missing data designs in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 11, 323-343.
7.
JustM.A.KellerT.A.CynkarJ. (2008). A decrease in brain activation associated with driving when listening to someone speak. Brain Research, 1205, 70-80.
8.
JonidesJ.YantisS. (1988). Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 43(4), 346-354.
9.
KahnemanD. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
10.
LinC.TChenS.A.KoL.W.WangY.K. (2011). EEG-based brain dynamics of driving distraction. In Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Neural Networks. San Jose, California.
11.
LittleT.D.RhemtullaM. (2013). Planned missing data designs for developmental researchers. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 199-204.
12.
ISO 14198 (2012). Road vehicles – Ergonomic aspects of transport information and control systems – Calibration tasks for methods which assess driver demand due to the use of in-vehicle systems. ISO/TC 22/SC 39.
13.
ISO 17488 (2015). Road Vehicles: Transport Information and Control Systems – Detection-Response Task (DRT) For Assessing Attentional Effects of Cognitive Load in Driving. TC/SC: ISO/TC 22/SC 39.
14.
MehlerB.ReimerB.DusekJ. A. (2011). MIT AgeLab Delayed Digit Recall Task (n-back), (August), 1–23.
15.
NHTSA. (2012). Visual-manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices. Department of Transportation. Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0053
16.
PerezM.HulseM.AngellL. (2013). Support for NHTSA Visual-Manual Guidelines: Expert Review of the Visual Occlusion Method and How It compares to Driver Eye-Glance Behavior. (Report No. DOT HS 811 763). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
17.
PalinkoO.KunA.L.ShyrokovAHeemanP. (2010). Estimating Cognitive Load Using Remote Eye Tracking in a Driving Simulator. Eye Tracking Research and Applications Symposium, 141-144.
18.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: https://www.R-project.org/.
19.
SchindhelmR.SchmidtE. (2015). Evaluation of the tactile detection response task in a laboratory test using a surrogate driving set-up. IET intelligent transport systems, 9(7), 683-689.
20.
StojmenovaK.JakusG.SodnikJ. (2017). Sensitivity evaluation of the visual, tactile, and auditory detection response task method while driving. Traffic Injury Prevention, 18(4), 431-436.
21.
StrayerD. L.CooperJ. M.GoetheR. M.MccartyM. M.GettyD.BiondiF.YangD. (2017). Visual and Cognitive Demands of Using In-Vehicle Infotainment Systems. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, (September). Retrieved from https://trid.trb.org/view/1486450.
22.
VictorT.W.HarblukJ.L.EngströmJ.A. (2005). Sensitivity of eye-movement measures to in-vehicle task difficulty. Transportation Research Part F8, 167-190.
23.
WickensC. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In NickersonR.S. (Eds.), Attention and performanceVIII (239-257). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24.
WongB. (2011). Points of view: Color blindness. Nature Methods, 8(6), 441–441.
25.
YoungR.AHseihL.SeamanS. (2013). The tactile detection response: Preliminary validation for measuring the attentional effects of cognitive load. In Proceedings of the 7th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, June 17-20, 2013, Bolton Landing, New York. Iowa City, IA: Public Policy Center, University of Iowa, 2013: 71-77.
26.
ZhangH.MatthewR.H.S.WittG.J. (2006). Identification of real-time diagnostic measures of visual distraction with an automatic eye-tracking system. Human Factors, 48(4), 805-821.
