So you have an idea of what it will take for you to drive post-stroke. Your doctor will have no clue other than to reflexively say you can't drive. I've been driving 8 years now, even drive in Chicago rush hour traffic, not fun but doable.
Driving and Multitasking: The Good, the Bad, and the Dangerous
- 1Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
- 2Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
Introduction
There is a general belief that driving cannot be combined
with any other task without affecting driving performance. Several
studies have found evidence for this (Ranney et al., 2000), ranging from phone conversations (Strayer and Johnston, 2001; Treffner and Barrett, 2004) to music listening (Brodsky, 2001).
However, recent evidence has indicated that multitasking could also be
beneficial for driving when the right circumstances are met (Gershon et al., 2009; Atchley and Chan, 2010; Ünal et al., 2012).
In this work we develop some theoretical explanations for both decrease
and increase in performance, and test these in an experiment for which
we predict to see both effects.
Multitasking Interference in Driving
When two tasks require the same perceptual or cognitive
resource at the same time, they are said to overlap with regards to that
resource. Overlap in resource use between concurrently performed tasks
leads to contention for those resources (Pashler, 1994; Wickens, 2002; Salvucci and Taatgen, 2008). In turn, this contention typically leads to reduced task performance (e.g., Just et al., 2008; Borst et al., 2010b; Strayer et al., 2013; Nijboer et al., 2014). For our purposes, we will describe overlap in terms of the resources defined in the threaded cognition theory (Salvucci and Taatgen, 2008),
which offers an account that is precise in terms of timing, and that is
based on resources defined in the ACT-R cognitive architecture (Anderson, 2007).
The resources that are most relevant for driving (and secondary tasks
next to driving) are the visual perception, auditive perception,
declarative memory, working memory and motor control. Although, driving
requires all of these resources to some degree (Herbert, 1963; Anstey et al., 2005),
the demands on these resources vary depending on the traffic situation.
For example, driving on a quiet road mainly requires visual perception
and motor control. Moreover, resources are not always required
full-time: it is acceptable to look away from the road for short periods
of time. According to threaded cognition, resources are assigned to
tasks based on two principles: greediness and politeness. The greediness
principle states that a task can be used when it is not used by any
other task at a particular moment, but has to wait if the resource is in
use. The politeness principle states that a task should release a
resource as soon as it is not needed anymore. For example, routine
driving does not require the use of working memory. Therefore, a
secondary task such as having a conversation that does require working
memory does not interfere with driving. However, if the driving
situation changes in a way that requires working memory, for example
planning how to cross a complex intersection, the conversation task may
interfere with driving because it does not relinquish working memory
soon enough.
Of all the resources that have been studied with respect
to driving interference, perceptual and motor interference have been
studied most (visual and auditory perception: Chaparro et al., 2005; Gherri and Eimer, 2011; manipulation of equipment: Brookhuis et al., 1991; Briem and Hedman, 1995; Janssen et al., 2012).
Cognitive requirements of secondary tasks turned out to be at least as
important. Of all tasks found to interfere with driving, cell-phone use
has received most attention due to the high number of traffic-accidents
attributed to such devices (Redelmeier and Tibshirani, 1997). In an influential study, Strayer and Johnston (2001)
showed that it is primarily what they call the attentional component of
holding a conversation that disrupts driving performance, by ruling out
explanations related to holding the phone, speaking, or listening.
Several studies have shown that holding a complex conversation in
particular affects driving performance (McKnight and McKnight, 1993; Briem and Hedman, 1995).
A resource that is pivotal in large disruptions of
performance in multitasking is working memory. Note that we use a
restricted concept of working memory, the part that Baddeley (2012) calls the central executive, and Oberauer (2002) the focus of attention. It is therefore closely related to Strayer and Johnston's (2001)
attentional component. In the threaded cognition theory, focal working
memory can hold a single chunk of information. This chunk can, in turn,
point to other sources to create a larger context, but it is the only
element that is available for immediate information processing. Any
other element needs some retrieval or recovery process to use.
Working memory is used to build up temporary
representations that are needed in the near future, for example the gist
of a conversation (e.g., van Rij et al., 2010, 2013) or to represent the result of partial computations in arithmetic (Borst et al., 2010a). Secondary tasks in driving experiments that involve working memory (e.g., Alm and Nilsson, 1995)
typically lead to decrements in both driving performance and
performance on the secondary task. The working-memory load of driving is
strongly dependent on the traffic: when the road is empty the driver
only has to remember information regarding the current state of the car,
which can be easily retrieved from visual and aural queues that are
constantly present in the environment. When there is substantial
traffic, however, the driver has to keep a detailed mental model of the
surrounding vehicles (Gugerty, 1997), as these will not always be visible: they might reside in the blind spot of the car, or be obscured by other vehicles.
Whenever there is a situation in which driving suddenly
requires working memory, the driver has to give up the contents of
working memory for the secondary task, which can lead to severe
disruptions in that task. Therefore, the driver may be reluctant to do
so, leading to possible dangerous decisions.
Given that accidents in both real and simulated driving are rare, we need a different measure of driving quality. In Alm and Nilsson's (1995)
study, the subjects had to follow a leading car, and had to respond to
that car's breaking by breaking. The response time was a measure of
driving quality. Gershon et al. (2009)
used a number of measures for driving quality: lateral deviation from
the middle of the lane, where more deviation is associated with less
attentive driving, standard deviation in speed, where more deviation
indicates the driver pays less attention, and standard deviation in
steering angle, where larger angles are indicative for poorer driving.
We will use these indicators, with some refinements, in our own study.
We will also look at overtaking behavior, where we will use consistency
in overtaking distance as a measure of quality, as well as proper
turn-signal use, and, given that subjects sometimes do hit other cars,
the frequency with which this occurs.
More at link.
No comments:
Post a Comment