Your browser does not support JavaScript!
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

access icon free Simulating the effect of cognitive load on braking responses in lead vehicle braking scenarios

  • Author(s): Johan Engström 1 ; Gustav Markkula 2 ; Qingwan Xue 2, 3 ; Natasha Merat 2
    • View affiliations
  • Source: Volume 12, Issue 6, August 2018, p. 427 – 433
    DOI:  10.1049/iet-its.2017.0233 , Print ISSN 1751-956X, Online ISSN 1751-9578
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology
Received 30/07/2017, Accepted 06/03/2018, Revised 07/02/2018, Published 08/03/2018

The recently proposed cognitive control hypothesis suggests that the performance of cognitively loading but non-visual tasks such as cell phone conversation selectively impairs driving tasks that rely on top-down cognitive control while leaving automatised driving tasks unaffected. This idea is strongly supported by the existing experimental literature and the authors have previously outlined a conceptual model to account for the key underlying mechanisms. The present paper presents a mechanistically explicit account of the cognitive control hypothesis in terms of a computational simulation model. More specifically, it is shown how this model offers a straightforward explanation for why the effect of cognitive load on brake response time reported in the experimental lead vehicle (LV) braking studies depends strongly on scenario kinematics, more specifically the initial time headway. It is demonstrated that this relatively simple model can be fitted to empirical data obtained from an existing meta-analysis on existing LV braking studies.

Inspec keywords: human factors; cognition; vehicles; braking

Other keywords: computational simulation model; automatised driving tasks; initial time headway; braking responses; cognitive load effect; meta-analysis; cognitive control hypothesis; LV braking; brake response time; lead vehicle braking scenarios; scenario kinematics; cell phone conversation; cognitive loading performance; conceptual model

Subjects: Systems theory applications in social science and politics

References

    1. 1)
      • 2. Engström, J., Markkula, G., Victor, T., et al: ‘Effects of cognitive load on driving performance: the cognitive control hypothesis’, Hum. Factors, 2017, 59, (5), pp. 734–764.
    2. 2)
      • 40. Markkula, G. ‘Modeling driver control behavior in both routine and near-accident driving’, Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet., 2014, 58, (1), pp. 879–883.
    3. 3)
      • 24. Franconeri, S.L., Simons, D.J.: ‘Moving and looming stimuli capture attention’, Percept. Psychophys., 2003, 65, (7), pp. 999–1010.
    4. 4)
      • 7. Merat, N., Jamson, A.H.: ‘The effect of stimulus modality on signal detection: implications for assessing the safety of in-vehicle technology’, Hum. Factors, 2008, 50, (1), pp. 145–158.
    5. 5)
      • 35. Feng, S.F., Schwemmer, M., Gershman, S.J., et al: ‘Multitasking vs. multiplexing: toward a normative account of limitations in the simultaneous execution of control-demanding behaviors’, Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci., 2014, 14, pp. 129–146.
    6. 6)
      • 16. Strayer, D.L., Drews, F.A., Johnston, W.A.: ‘Cell phone induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving’, J. Exp. Psychol., Appl., 2003, 9, pp. 23–52.
    7. 7)
      • 13. Lee, J.D., Caven, B., Haake, S., et al: ‘Speech-based interaction with in-vehicle computers: The effect of speech-based e-mail on drivers’ attention to the roadway’, Hum. Factors, 2001, 43, pp. 631–640.
    8. 8)
      • 41. Markkula, G., Boer, E.R., Romano, R., et al: Sustained sensorimotor control as intermittent decisions about prediction errors: Computational framework and application to ground vehicle steering. Biological Cybernetics (in press).
    9. 9)
      • 43. Ratcliff, R., Strayer, D.L.: ‘Modeling simple driving tasks with a one-boundary diffusion model’, Psychon. Bull. Rev., 2014, 21, (3), pp. 577–589.
    10. 10)
      • 8. Patten, C., Kircher, A., Östlund, J., et al: ‘Using mobile telephones: cognitive workload and attention resource allocation’, Accident Anal. Prev., 2003, 36, (3), pp. 341–350.
    11. 11)
      • 10. Bergen, B., Medeiros-Ward, N., Wheeler, K., et al: ‘The crosstalk hypothesis: language interferes with driving because of modality-specific mental simulation’, J. Exp. Psychol. Gen., 2014, 142, pp. 119–130.
    12. 12)
      • 27. Markkula, G., Engström, J., Lodin, J., et al: ‘A farewell to brake reaction times? Kinematics-dependent brake response in naturalistic rear-end emergencies’, Accident Anal. Prev., 2016, 95, pp. 209–226.
    13. 13)
      • 36. Miller, E.K., Cohen, J.D.: ‘An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function’, Annu. Rev. Neurosci., 2001, 24, pp. 167–202.
    14. 14)
      • 19. Sonnleitner, A., Treder, M.S., Simon, M., et al: ‘EEG alpha spindles and prolonged brake reaction times during auditory distraction in an on-road driving study’, Accident Anal. Prev., 2014, 62, pp. 110–118.
    15. 15)
      • 6. ISO: ‘Road vehicles – transport information and control systems – detection response task (DRT) for assessing attentional effects of cognitive load in driving. International Standard, ISO 17488’, 2015.
    16. 16)
      • 4. Harbluk, J.L., Burns, P.C., Hernandez, S., et al: ‘Detection response tasks: using remote, headmounted and tactile signals to assess cognitive demand while driving’. Proc. Seventh Int. Driving Symp. on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design, Lake George, NY, 2013, pp. 78–84.
    17. 17)
      • 42. Ratcliff, R., Tuerlinckx, F.: ‘Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability’, Psychon. Bull. Rev., 2002, 9, (3), pp. 438–481.
    18. 18)
      • 26. Schiff, W., Caviness, J.A., Gibson, J.J.: ‘‘Persistent fear responses in rhesus monkeys to the optical stimulus of ‘looming’’, Science, 1962, 136, (3520), pp. 982–983.
    19. 19)
      • 11. Brookhuis, K.A., de Vries, G., Waard, D.: ‘The effects of mobile telephoning on driving performance’, Accident Anal. Prev., 1991, 23, (4), pp. 309–316.
    20. 20)
      • 34. Cohen, J.D., Dunbar, K., McClelland, J.L.: ‘On the control of automatic processes: a parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect’, Psychol. Rev., 1990, 97, pp. 332–361.
    21. 21)
      • 3. Bruyas, M.P., Dumont, L.: ‘Sensitivity of detection response task (DRT) to the driving demand and task difficulty’. Proc. Seventh Int. Driving Symp. on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design, Lake George, NY, 2013, pp. 64–70.
    22. 22)
      • 46. Markkula, E., Engström, J.: ‘Simulating effects of arousal on lane keeping: Are drowsiness and cognitive load opposite ends of a single spectrum?’ Paper presented at the10th Int. Conf. on Managing Fatigue, San Diego, CA, 2017.
    23. 23)
      • 22. Mantzke, O., Keinath, A.: ‘Relating the detection response task to critical events-consequences of high cognitive workload to brake reaction times’, Procedia Manuf., 2015, 3, pp. 2381–2386.
    24. 24)
      • 21. Baumann, M.R.K., Petzoldt, T., Hogema, J., et al: ‘The effect of cognitive tasks on predicting events in traffic’. Proc. European Conf. on Human Centred Design for Intelligent Transport Systems, Lyon, France, 2008, pp. 3–11.
    25. 25)
      • 1. Engström, J.: ‘Understanding attention selection in driving: from limited capacity to adaptive behaviour’. PhD thesis, Chalmers University, Sweden, 2011.
    26. 26)
      • 25. Náñez, J.: ‘Perception of impending collision in 3-to 6-week-old human infants’, Infant Behav. Dev., 1988, 11, (4), pp. 447–463.
    27. 27)
      • 12. Engström, J., Ljung Aust, M., Viström, M.: ‘Effects of working memory load and repeated scenario exposure on emergency braking performance’, Hum. Factors, 2010, 52, (5), pp. 551–559.
    28. 28)
      • 5. Engström, J., Larsson, P., Larsson, C.: ‘Comparison of static and driving simulator venues for the tactile detection response task’. Proc. Seventh Int. Driving Symp. on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design, Lake George, NY, 2013..
    29. 29)
      • 33. Botvinick, M.M., Cohen, J.D.: ‘The computational and neural basis of cognitive control: charted territory and new frontiers’, Cogn. Sci., 2014, 38, pp. 1249–1285.
    30. 30)
      • 29. Lewis-Evans, B., de Waard, D., Brookhuis, K.A.: ‘Speed maintenance under cognitive load – implications for theories of driver behaviour’, Accident Anal. Prev., 2011, 43, pp. 1497–1507.
    31. 31)
      • 23. Shiffrin, R.M., Schneider, W.: ‘Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychol. Rev., 1977, 84, pp. 127–190.
    32. 32)
      • 45. Tillman, G., Strayer, D.L., Eidels, A., et al: ‘Modeling cognitive load effects of conversation between a passenger and driver’, Attention Percep. Psychophys., 2017, 79, (6), pp. 1795–1803Open Science Framework.
    33. 33)
      • 39. Engström, J.: ‘Scenario criticality determines the effects of working memory load on brake response time’. Proc. European Conf. on Human Centred Design for Intelligent Transport Systems, Lyon, France, 2010, pp. 25–36.
    34. 34)
      • 17. Strayer, D.L., Drews, F.A.: ‘Profiles in driver distraction: effects of cell phone conversations on younger and older drivers’, Hum. Factors, 2004, 46, pp. 640–649.
    35. 35)
      • 28. Medeiros-Ward, N., Cooper, J.M., Strayer, D.L.: ‘Hierarchical control and driving’, J. Exp. Psychol. Gen., 2014, 143, (3), pp. 953–958.
    36. 36)
      • 44. Cooper, J.M., Strayer, D.L.: ‘Effects of simulator practice and real-world experience on cell-phone related driver distraction’, Hum. Factors, 2008, 50, pp. 893–902.
    37. 37)
      • 14. Levy, J., Pashler, H., Boer, E.: ‘Central interference in driving - is there any stopping the psychological refractory period?’ Psychol. Sci., 2006, 17, (3), pp. 228–235.
    38. 38)
      • 37. Schumacher, E.H., Seymour, T.L., Glass, J.M., et al: ‘Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck’, Psychol. Sci., 2001, 12, pp. 101–108.
    39. 39)
      • 38. Engström, J., Markkula, G., Merat, N.: ‘Modeling the effect of cognitive load on driver reactions to a braking lead vehicle: a computational account of the cognitive control hypothesis’. Paper presented at the 5th Int. Conf. of Driver Distraction and Inattention, Paris, France, 2017.
    40. 40)
      • 18. Strayer, D.L., Drews, F.A., Crouch, D.J.: ‘A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver’, Hum. Factors, 2006, 48, (2), pp. 381–391.
    41. 41)
      • 9. Alm, H., Nilsson, L.: ‘The effects of a mobile telephone task on driver behaviour in a car following situation’, Accident Anal. Prev., 1995, 27, pp. 707–715.
    42. 42)
      • 32. Engström, J., Victor, T., Markkula., : ‘Attention selection and multitasking in everyday driving: A conceptual model’, in Regan, M. A, Victor, T.W., Lee, J.D. (Eds.) Driver distraction and inattention: advances in research and countermeasures (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013), pp. 27–54.
    43. 43)
      • 20. Muttart, J.W., Fisher, D.L., Knodler, M., et al: ‘Driving without a clue: evaluation of driver simulator performance during hands-free cell phone operation in a work zone’, Transp. Res. Rec., J. Transp. Res. Board, 2007, 2018, pp. 9–14.
    44. 44)
      • 15. Salvucci, D.D., Beltowska, J.: ‘Effects of memory rehearsal on driver performance: experiment and theoretical account’, Hum. Factors, 2008, 50, pp. 834–844.
    45. 45)
      • 30. Recarte, M.A., Nuñes, L.M.: ‘Mental load and loss of control over speed in real driving. Towards a theory of attentional speed control’, Transp. Res., 2002, 5, pp. 111–122.
    46. 46)
      • 31. Cooper, P.J., Zheng, Y., Richard, C., et al: ‘The impact of hands-free message reception/response on driving task performance’, Accident Anal. Prev., 2003, 35, pp. 23–35.
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/iet-its.2017.0233
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/iet-its.2017.0233
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading
Print this page
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address