Upload
ida
View
21
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Mobile Phone Use in a Driving Simulation Task: Differences in Eye Movements. Stacy Balk, Kristin Moore, Will Spearman, & Jay Steele. The Problem. Each year there are nearly 43,000 traffic collisions (NHTSA, 2005) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Mobile Phone Use in a Driving Simulation Task: Differences in
Eye Movements
Stacy Balk, Kristin Moore,Will Spearman, & Jay Steele
The Problem
Each year there are nearly 43,000 traffic collisions (NHTSA, 2005)
Traffic crashes are responsible for 40 percent of deaths of people aged 15-20 (National Transportation Board, 2005)
Inattention is the most sighted cause for traffic crashes (NHTSA, 2000)
Background
When driving, & mental workload is increased (e.g. high traffic, visual clutter, etc.) drivers are less able to maintain high situation awareness.
A reduction in situation awareness may result in a lowered ability to optimally perform driving tasks (Gugerty 1997).
Background Cont.
In addition to normal aspects of driving, conversing on mobile phones has been shown to dramatically increase mental workload (Recarte & Nunes, 2003).
This is especially troubling due to the recent increase in the popularity of mobile phones (Incisive Interactive Marketing, 2005)
Background Cont.
85% of all mobile phone owners talk on their phones at least occasionally while driving (NHTSA, 1997)
21% of crashes or near crashes reported by respondents involved at least one driver using a mobile phone (Seo & Torabi, 2004).
Previous Work
Strayer & Johnston (2001) found participants who used a mobile phone (both hand-held and hands free) performed worse in a driving task compared with participants who passively listened to radio broadcasts or books on tape.
Thus the ‘hands’ aspect is not what degrades driving performance
Previous Work cont.
Strayer et al. found that people that talking on mobile phones in a driving task were more likely to experience ‘looked-but-failed-to-see’ errors (2003)
Crundall et al. (2004) found that people talking on mobile phones have shorter fixation durations – which may account for ‘looked-but-failed-to-see’ errors
Previous Work cont.
It has been well established that talking while driving degrades driving performance.
It is not known, however, which aspects of ‘good’ driving are affected when talking on a mobile phone while driving (Gugerty, 2004)
Purpose
Engaging in TMWD increases driving errors as well as ‘looked-but-failed-to-see’ errors, it is not known how visual search strategies are modified according to the specific driving task.
The current study sought to quantify if/how visual search patterns change while engaging in a mobile phone conversation as well as combined with potentially hazardous driving situations
Participants
16 (11 female) Clemson University undergraduate students
20/20 or corrected to 20/20 vision A valid drivers’ licenseAt least 2 years driving experience (M =
3.5 years). One person was not able to participate
due to poor tracking
Apparatus
Tobii 1750 eye tracker Sampling rate of 50 hertz 1280 x 1024 display 17 LCD screen
Design
Between subjects, 2 x 2 design. 8 people (3 male, 5 female) participated in
the mobile phone condition 8 people (2 male, x 6 female) participated
in the non-mobile phone condition. All participants viewed 12 trials with 4
vehicles and 12 trials with 7 vehicles in the driving scene.
Development of the Driving Simulator
C++, OpenGL, SDLDynamic ROI generationSynchronization of frame rate and eye
trackerMirrors
Language task
Pimsleur Japanese language learning compact disk set for beginners
3 language aspects: Listening Repeat Generate
Synced to begin and end with each driving scene
Procedure
Participants were given instructionsPractice trialsCalibrationView trials (people in the mobile phone
task ‘spoke’ simultaneously)Answered a question about what occurred
during the sceneConfidence in their response
Procedure
After the completion of the 24 trials, people responded to a questionnaire about their attitudes and thoughts about mobile phones
Results
People on the mobile phone answered fewer questions about the scene correctly F (1, 14) = 49.594, p < .001 (37% vs. 68%)
People in the non-mobile phone group were more confident in their responses F (1, 200) = 23.314, p < .001. (4.03 vs. 3.18)
Overall people answered more questions with 4 vehicles correctly than with 7 F (1, 380) = 11.861, p = .001. (60% vs. 44%)
Results
Survey Results
All participants owned a mobile phone On average, participants reported using their
mobile phone ‘sometimes – often’ while driving 4 participants reported using their phone nearly
every time they drove. All felt others’ driving performance is degraded
while TMWD However, 7 of the 16 participants felt their
driving performance was only degraded slightly or not at all
Eye Data Analysis
Removed bad dataVelocity filter to determine fixations and
durationsROI output from driving simulator
compared with fixations
Eye Data Results - Overall
Mobile Phone Fewer total valid points
Percentage of fixations of total eye points were not different
No Mobile Phone Larger number of total
fixations
The spread of the fixations were not different
Eye Data Results – ROIs over whole task
Mobile Phone Less time spent in the
ROI Duration of fixations
was less (supports looked-but-failed-to see hypothesis)
No Mobile Phone More fixations in the
ROI
Eye Data Results – ROIs during the event
Mobile Phone Less time spent in the
ROI Duration of fixations
was less (supports looked-but-failed-to see hypothesis)
No Mobile Phone More fixations in the
ROI
Discussion
Language task: Controlled speed of conversation Interest level Etc.
Low-fidelity vs. high fidelity simulatorEye-data ‘thinking’ phenomenon
Conclusions / future work
People may not be aware of decreased performance when TMWD
Repeat the expt. with a more ‘involved’ task
Examine the validity of the language task