Show simple item record

Effects of Driver and Secondary Task Characteristics on Lane Change Test Performance

dc.contributor.authorRodrick, Daviden_US
dc.contributor.authorBhise, Viveken_US
dc.contributor.authorJothi, Vaithianathanen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-11-01T19:00:53Z
dc.date.available2015-01-05T13:54:44Zen_US
dc.date.issued2013-11en_US
dc.identifier.citationRodrick, David; Bhise, Vivek; Jothi, Vaithianathan (2013). "Effects of Driver and Secondary Task Characteristics on Lane Change Test Performance." Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 23(6): 560-572.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1090-8471en_US
dc.identifier.issn1520-6564en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/100276
dc.description.abstractThe main objective of this study was to examine the sensitivity of the Lane Change Test (LCT) as proposed by International Organization of Standardization by evaluating LCT performance between primary and dual‐task conditions in simulated driving conditions. The study involved four different secondary tasks that involved tracking, visual search, memory, and data entry, each under two different difficulty levels. The primary task involved a series of lane changes on a three‐lane straight roadway where the actual lane change trajectory was compared with a normative model of the trajectory. Thus, the lane change performance was measured by the mean deviation of the actual driving trajectory from the normative trajectory. Twenty‐four participants within three age groups (25–34, 35–45, and >55 years) and equally distributed between male and female took part in the study. Thus, the study also investigated the effect of age and gender on driving performance. The results showed that secondary tasks that require visual attention and psychomotor coordination deteriorated driving performance the most, whereas tasks that required memory scanning and utilization of the auditory modality least affected driving performance. The study also found differences in LCT performances with respect to three different age categories and gender. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.subject.otherSecondary Tasken_US
dc.subject.otherLane Change Test (LCT)en_US
dc.subject.otherDrivingen_US
dc.subject.otherDistractionen_US
dc.subject.otherAgingen_US
dc.titleEffects of Driver and Secondary Task Characteristics on Lane Change Test Performanceen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelNatural Resources and Environmenen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan‐Dearborn, Dearborn, Michigan, USAen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/100276/1/20342_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/hfm.20342en_US
dc.identifier.sourceHuman Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industriesen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYoung, K., & Regan, M. ( 2007 ). Driver distraction: A review of the literature. In I. J. Faulks, M. Regan, M. Stevenson, J. Brown, A. Porter, & J. D. Irwin (Eds.). Distracted driving. Sydney, NSW: Australasian College of Road Safety,pp. 379 – 405.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWynn, T., & Richardson, J. ( 2008 ).Comparison of subjective workload ratings and performance measures of a reference IVIS task. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Human Centred Design for Intelligent Transport Systems, April 3‐4, 2008, Lyon, France.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStrayer, D. L., & Drews, F. A. ( 2007 ). Cell‐phone‐induced driver distraction. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16 ( 3 ), 128 – 131.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStutts, J., Feaganes, J., Reinfurt, D., Rodgman, E., Hamlett, C., Gish, K., & Staplin, L. ( 2005 ). Driver's exposure to distractions in their natural driving environment. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 37, 1093 – 1101.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStutts, J. C., Reinfurt, D. W., Staplin, L., & Rodgman, E. A. ( 2001 ). The role of driver distraction in traffic crashes. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTijerina, L., Parmer, E., & Goodman, M. J. ( 1998 ). Driver workload assessment of route guidance system destination entry while driving: A test track study. Proceedings of the 5th ITS World Congress, Seoul, Korea, CD‐ROM. October 12–16, 1990.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceWickens, C. D. ( 2002 ). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 159 – 177.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTrezise, I., Stoney, E. G., Bishop, B., Eren, J., Harkness, A., Langdon, C., & Mulder, T. ( 2006 ). Report of the road safety committee on the inquiry into driver distraction. Rep. No. 209. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Road Safety Committee, Parliament of Victoria.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBurns, P. C., Trbovich, P. L., McCurdie, T., & Harbluk, J. L. ( 2005 ). Measuring distraction: Task duration and the Lane‐Change Test (LCT). Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Orlando, FL. September 26‐30, 2005. pp. 1980 – 1983.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEngström, J., & Markkula, G. ( 2007 ). Effects of visual and cognitive task demand on Lane Change Test performance. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design. July 9–12, 2007. Stevenson, Washington.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHarbluk, J. L., Burns, P. C., Lochner, M., & Trbovich, P. L. ( 2007 ). Using the Lane Change Test (LCT) to assess distraction: Tests of visual‐manual and speech‐based operation of navigation system interfaces. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, Stevenson, Washington, July 9–12, 2007. pp. 16 – 22.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHorberry, T., Anderson, J., Regan, M. A., Triggs, T. J., & Brown, J. ( 2006 ). Driver distraction: The effects of concurrent in‐vehicle tasks, road environment complexity and age on driving performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38 ( 1 ), 185 – 191.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHorrey, W. J., & Wickens, C. D. ( 2006 ). Examining the impact of cell phone conversations on driving using meta‐analytic techniques. Human Factors, 48, 196 – 205.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHurwitz, J. B., & Wheatley, D. J. ( 2002 ).Using driver performance measures to estimate workload. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Baltimore: September 30‐October 4, 2002.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMattes, S., & Hallen, A. ( 2008 ). Surrogate distraction measurement techniques: The Lane Change Test. In M. A. Regan, J. D. Lee, & K. L. Young (Eds.), Driver distraction: Theory, effects and mitigation Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMatthews, R., Legg, S., & Charlton, S. ( 2003 ). The effect of cell phone type on drivers subjective workload during concurrent driving and conversing. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35, 451 – 457.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).( 2009 ). Traffic safety facts (DOT HS 811 216). Washington, DC: NHTSA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).( 2010 ). Driver distraction program (DOT HS 811 299). Washington, DC: NHTSA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNeyens, D. M., & Boyle, L. N. ( 2008 ). The influence of driver distraction on the severity of injuries sustained by teenage drivers and their passengers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40 ( 1 ), 254 – 259.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePettitt, M., Burnett, G., & Stevens, A. ( 2005 ).Defining driver distraction. Paper presented at World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, San Francisco, CA. November 6–10, 2005.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRamney, T. A. ( 2008 ). Driver distraction: A review of the current state‐of‐knowledge (DOT HS 810 787). Washington, DC: NHTSA.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStrayer, D. L., & Drews, F. A. ( 2004 ). Profiles of driver distraction: Effects of cell phone conversations on younger and older drivers. Human Factors, 46, 640 – 649.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.