Current Search:  driver distraction (x)

View All Items

  • CSV Spreadsheet
(1 - 2 of 2)
TEMPORARY BARRIERS REDUCE RUBBERNECKING AND EXTERNAL DISTRACTION ON ROADWAYS
Title
TEMPORARY BARRIERS REDUCE RUBBERNECKING AND EXTERNAL DISTRACTION ON ROADWAYS.
Creator
Colon, Nicholas, Mouloua, Mustapha, University of Central Florida
Abstract / Description
The purpose of the current study was to empirically examine the effects of accident scenes on eye movement as well as driving behavior. Fifty-four participants drove in a driving simulator wearing a head-mounted eye-tracker in three experimental drives, one of which had an accident scene. The participants were put into one of three different conditions (no barrier, partial barrier, or full barrier). The results showed significant main effects of distraction (accident vs. no accident) on dwell...
Show moreThe purpose of the current study was to empirically examine the effects of accident scenes on eye movement as well as driving behavior. Fifty-four participants drove in a driving simulator wearing a head-mounted eye-tracker in three experimental drives, one of which had an accident scene. The participants were put into one of three different conditions (no barrier, partial barrier, or full barrier). The results showed significant main effects of distraction (accident vs. no accident) on dwell frequency and duration, average speed, and root mean square error of the steering wheel angle during the drive with the accident scenes. In addition, the results also showed significant interaction effects between distraction and type of barrier (no, partial, or full) on dwell frequency and duration. The full barrier condition had the biggest effect on decreasing dwell duration and frequency. The findings support the Salience Effort Expectancy Value (SEEV) model of attention and previous research stating objects high in salience attract attention (Wickens & Horrey, 2008; Itti & Koch, 2000). These findings also support previous research by Mayer, Caird, Milloy, Percival, & Ohlhauser (2010) stating that drivers drive in the safest manner (lowest passing speed) when an emergency vehicles are present with the emergency lights on. Temporary barriers could be used to help decrease the effects of rubbernecking on highways when an accident scene is present (Masinick & Teng, 2004; Potts, Harwood, Hutton, & Kinzel, 2010)
Show less
Date Issued
2013
Identifier
CFH0004331, ucf:45059
Format
Document (PDF)
PURL
http://purl.flvc.org/ucf/fd/CFH0004331
Working Memory Capacity and Executive Attention as Predictors of Distracted Driving
Title
Working Memory Capacity and Executive Attention as Predictors of Distracted Driving.
Creator
Louie, Jennifer, Mouloua, Mustapha, Szalma, James, Smither, Janan, Matthews, Gerald, University of Central Florida
Abstract / Description
The present study empirically examined the effects of working memory capacity (WMC) and executive attention on distracted driving. Study 1 examined whether a Grocery List Task (GLT) distractor would load onto WMC. Forty-three participants completed a series of WMC tasks followed by the GLT. They then completed two driving trials: driving without the GLT and driving while completing the GLT. It was hypothesized that WMC would positively correlate with GLT performance. A bivariate correlation...
Show moreThe present study empirically examined the effects of working memory capacity (WMC) and executive attention on distracted driving. Study 1 examined whether a Grocery List Task (GLT) distractor would load onto WMC. Forty-three participants completed a series of WMC tasks followed by the GLT. They then completed two driving trials: driving without the GLT and driving while completing the GLT. It was hypothesized that WMC would positively correlate with GLT performance. A bivariate correlation indicated that WMC was positively associated with performance on the GLT. Study 2 tested a series of distractor tasks (GLT, Tone Monitoring, and Stop Signal) to examine whether these three distractor tasks were also related to WMC, and if each of the distractor tasks would result in poor driving performance. Eighty-four participants were randomly assigned to the distractor conditions. Results indicated that GLT was related to WMC, but Tone Monitoring was not related to WMC. Also, engaging in each of the three distractor tasks led to significantly poorer driving performance. Study 3 evaluated whether rainy or clear weather conditions would affect the relationship between WMC and distracted driving using the same three distractor tasks (GLT, Tone Monitoring, and Stop Signal) as used in Study 2. Ninety-six participants were randomly assigned to the distractor conditions. Results showed that engaging in GLT while driving led to slower braking response times compared to not engaging in GLT driving while driving. Furthermore, WMC moderated the degree to which distraction impaired performance. The present findings clearly indicate that all three distractor tasks had a deleterious effect on driving performance. Furthermore, this effect of distraction on driving depends on many factors, including the type of distraction, the driving performance measure, and the individual's cognitive capabilities. Both theoretical and practical implications are discussed and directions for future research are presented.
Show less
Date Issued
2018
Identifier
CFE0007042, ucf:51981
Format
Document (PDF)
PURL
http://purl.flvc.org/ucf/fd/CFE0007042