This study presents findings of a laboratory experiment which aimed at evaluating the sensitivity and intrusiveness of tactile detection response task (TDRT) methodology. Various single-task, dual-task and triple-task scenarios were compared. The task scenarios included a surrogate of driving (tracking task) and different secondary tasks (N-back, surrogate reference task (SuRT)). The results suggest that the TDRT is sensitive to load levels of secondary tasks which primarily demand for cognitive resources (N-back). Sensitivity to variations of visual–manual load could not be shown (SuRT). TDRT seems also to be able to differentiate between modes of primary task which varies in terms of cognitive load (visual against auditory tracking task). Results indicated intrusiveness of TDRT on primary task performance and secondary task performance depending on the type of underlying task scenario. As a conclusion, TDRT can be recommended as a method to assess attentional effects of cognitive load of a secondary task, but should be used with caution for secondary tasks with strong motor demands.

References

1. 1)
  - 7. Gelau, C., Schindhelm, R.: ‘Enhancing the occlusion technique as an assessment tool for driver visual distraction’, IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2010, 4, (4), pp. 346–355 (doi: 10.1049/iet-its.2009.0115).
2. 2)
  - 6. Michon, J.A.: ‘A critical view of driver behavior models: what do we know, what should we do?’, in Evans, L., Schwing, R.C. (Eds.): ‘Human behavior and traffic safety’ (Plenum Press, New York, 1985), pp. 485–520.
3. 3)
  - 13. Bruyas, M.-P., Dumont, L.: ‘Sensitivity of detection response task (DRT) to the driving demand and task difficulty’. Proc. of the Seventh Int. Driving Symp. on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, New York, 2013.
4. 4)
  - 11. Engström, J., Larsson, P., Larsson, C.: ‘Comparison of static and driving simulator venues for the tactile detection response task’. Proc. of the Seventh Int. Driving Symp. on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, New York, 2013.
5. 5)
  - 2. Engström, J., Aberg, N., Johansson, E., Hammarbäck, J.: ‘Comparison between visual and tactile signal detection tasks applied to the safety assessment of in-vehicle information systems (IVIS)’. Proc. of the Third Int. Driving Symp. on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, Rockport (Maine), 2005.
6. 6)
  - 18. Metz, B., Schömig, N., Krüger, H.-P.: ‘Attention during visual secondary tasks in driving: adaptation to the demands of the driving task’, Transp. Res. F, Traffic Psychol. Behav., 2011, 14, (5), pp. 369–380 (doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2011.04.004).
7. 7)
  - 20. Eggemeier, F.T.: ‘Properties of workload assessment techniques’, in Hancock, P.A., Meshkati, N. (Eds.): ‘Human mental workload’ (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1988).
8. 8)
  - 5. Engström, J., Monk, C.A., Hanowski, R.J., et al: ‘A conceptual framework and taxonomy for understanding and categorizing driver inattention’. Project Report 2013, 2013 US-EU ITS Cooperation, Driver Distraction and HMI WG. Available at http://www.ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/us-eu-inattention-taxonomy-report.
9. 9)
  - 19. Diels, C.: ‘Tactile detection task as a real time cognitive workload measure’, in Bust, P.D. (Ed.): ‘Contemporary ergonomics’ (Taylor & Francis, London, 2011), pp. 183–290.
10. 10)
  - 14. Young, R.A., Hsieh, L., Seaman, S.: ‘The tactile detection response task: preliminary validation for measuring the attentional effects of cognitive load’. Proc. of the Seventh Int. Driving Symp. on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, New York, 2013.
11. 11)
  - 4. ISO/DIS 17488: ‘Road vehicles – Transport information and control systems – Detection-Response Task (DRT) for assessing attentional effects of cognitive load in driving’. ISO/ TC 22/SC 13/WG 8, 2014.
12. 12)
  - 15. Whitall, J., Forrester, L., Song, S.: ‘Dual-finger preferred-speed tapping: effects of coordination mode and anatomical finger and limb pairings’, J. Motor Behav., 1999, 31, (4), pp. 325–339 (doi: 10.1080/00222899909600998).
13. 13)
  - 12. Zijlstra, F.R.H.: ‘Efficiency in work behaviour – a design approach for modern tools’ (Delft: Delft University Press, Delft, 1993).
14. 14)
  - 10. Mehler, B., Reimer, B., Dusek, J.A.: ‘MIT AgeLab delayed digit recall task (nback)’. MIT AgeLab white paper 2011-3B, 2011.
15. 15)
  - 3. Pettitt, M.A.: ‘Visual demand evaluation methods for in-vehicle interfaces’. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham, 2008.
16. 16)
  - 8. Mattes, S., Föhl, U., Schindhelm, R.: ‘Empirical comparison of methods for off-line workload measurement’. AIDE Deliverable 2.2.7, 2007, EU project IST-1-507674-IP.
17. 17)
  - 1. Martens, M.H., van Winsum, W.: ‘Measuring distraction: the peripheral detection task’ (TNO Human Factors, Soesterberg, 2000). Available at http://www.rijschool-simulator.nl.
18. 18)
  - 9. Conti, A.S., Dlugosch, C., Bengler, K.: ‘The effect of task set instruction on detection response task performance’. Proc. of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Europe Chapter 2013 Annual Conf., 2014. Available at http://www.hfes-europe.org/.
19. 19)
  - 16. Walter, C.B., Swinnen, S.P.: ‘Asymmetric interlimb interference during the performance of a dynamic bimanual task’, Brain Cogn., 1990, 14, pp. 185–200 (doi: 10.1016/0278-2626(90)90028-M).
20. 20)
  - 17. Wege, C.A., Pereira, M., Victor, T.W., Krems, J.F.: ‘Behavioural adaptation in response to driving assistance technologies: a literature review’, in Stevens, A., Brusque, C., Krems, J.F. (Eds): ‘Driver adaptation to information and assistance systems’ (IET, London, 2014), pp. 13–34.

Evaluation of the tactile detection response task in a laboratory test using a surrogate driving set-up

References

Related content