Analysis of Gaze Behavior to Measure Cognitive Distraction in Real-World Driving

Abstract

Cognitive distraction can impair drivers’ situation awareness and control performance in driving. An on-road study was conducted to examine the efficacy in the detection of driver cognitive distraction based on the driver monitoring system developed by Seeing Machines. Participants completed a 25-km test drive on the local public roads whilst engaging in a series of secondary tasks that were designed to trigger different types of cognitive distraction, such as conversation, comprehension, N-back, and route-planning tasks. The findings showed that percent road center (PRC), one of the promising gaze metrics, increased significantly with cognitive distraction when compared to baseline, but failed to distinguish between different forms of cognitive distraction Moreover, PRC’s sensitivity to cognitive distraction was found to be affected by the chosen radius of road center area. These findings of driver cognitive distraction measurement provide data-driven suggestions for the development of real-time driver monitoring systems in the wild.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahlström

Kircher

(2009). Considerations when calculating percent road centre from eye movement data in driver distraction monitoring. Fifth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, 132-139.

Cohen

(1969). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. NY: Academic Press.

Coe

(2002). It’s the effect size, stupid: What effect size is and why it is important. Paper presented at Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, Univeristy of Exeter, England.

Cooper

J. M.

Mederios-Ward

Strayer

D. L.

(2013). The impact of eye movements and cognitive workload on lateral position variability in driving. Hum Factors, 55(5), 1001-1014.

Engström

Johansson

Östlund

(2005). Effects of visual and cognitive load in real and simulated motorway driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8(2), 97-120.

Fridman

Reimer

Mehler

Freeman

W. T.

(2018). Cognitive Load Estimation in the Wild. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 652. ACM.

Harbluk

J. L.

Noy

Y. I.

Trbovich

P. L.

Eizenman

(2007). An on-road assessment of cognitive distraction: Impacts on drivers’ visual behavior and braking performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39(2), 372-379.

Hölscher

Tenbrink

Wiener

J. M.

(2011). Would you follow your own route description? Cognitive strategies in urban route planning. Cognition, 121(2), 228-247.

Kass

S. J.

Cole

K. S.

Stanny

C. J.

(2007). Effects of distraction and experience on situation awareness and simulated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 10(4), 321-329.

10.

Kutila

M. H.

Jokela

Mäkinen

Viitanen

Markkula

Victor

T. W.

(2007). Driver cognitive distraction detection: Feature estimation and implementation. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, 221(9), 1027-1040.

11.

Liang

Reyes

M. L.

Lee

J. D.

(2007). Real-time detection of driver cognitive distraction using support vector machines. IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems, 8(2), 340-350.

12.

Mehler

Reimer

Dusek

J. A.

(2011). MIT AgeLab delayed digit recall task (n-back). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

13.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2017). 2016 fatal motor vehicle crashes: overview (DOT Publication No. HS 812 456).Washington, DC: NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis.

14.

Shinar

(2015). Cognitive Workload not equal Crash Risk: Rejoinder to Study by Strayer et al. (2015). Human Factors, 57(8), 1328-1330.

15.

Strayer

D. L.

Turrill

Cooper

J. M.

Coleman

J. R.

Medeiros-Ward

Biondi

(2015). Assessing cognitive distraction in the automobile. Human factors, 57(8), 1300-1324.

16.

Victor

T. W.

Harbluk

J. L.

Engström

J. A.

(2005). Sensitivity of eye-movement measures to in-vehicle task difficulty. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8(2), 167-190.

17.

Victor

Dozza

Bärgman

Boda

C. N.

Engström

Flannagan

. . . Markkula

(2015). Analysis of naturalistic driving study data: Safer glances, driver inattention, and crash risk. No. SHRP 2 Report S2-S08A-RW-1.

18.

Wang

Reimer

Dobres

ehler

(2014). The sensitivity of different methodologies for characterizing drivers’ gaze concentration under increased cognitive demand. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 26, 227-237.

19.

Yang

Ferris

T. K.

(2017). Cognitive Efficiency in Human–Machine Systems: Metrics of Display Effectiveness for Supporting Multitask Performance. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 1555343417712464.