Semi-automated vehicles (Level-2) provide driving assistance, but they still require driver supervision to maintain safe driving. However, little is known about potential differences in drivers’ cognitive states during manual vs. Level-2 automated driving. The current study systematically examined the effects of manual and Level-2 driving on drivers’ arousal and workload during on-road driving. No differences between the two driving modes were found for the five outcomes that assessed cognitive arousal and workload (i.e., heart rate, root mean square of successive heart period differences, EEG alpha power, and hit rate and reaction time on a secondary task). A Bayes Factor analysis suggested that there is strong evidence that cognitive arousal and workload during Level-2 driving did not differ from manual driving. These novel and theoretically meaningful findings provide strong evidence of similar cognitive arousal and workload states in Level-2 automation and manual driving.
References
1.
BarrD. J. (2013). Random effects structure for testing interactions in linear mixed-effects models. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 328.
2.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48.
3.
BenglerK.KohlmannM.LangeC. (2012). Assessment of cognitive workload of in-vehicle systems using a visual peripheral and tactile detection task setting. Work, 41 (Supplement 1), 4919-4923.
4.
BerntsonG. G.QuigleyK. S.LozanoD. (2007). Cardiovascular psychophysiology. In CacioppoJ. T.TassinaryL. G.BerntsonG. G. (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (3rd ed., pp. 182–210). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BowmanA. D.GriffisJ. C.VisscherK. M.DobbinsA. C.GawneT. J.DiFrancescoM. W.SzaflarskiJ. P. (2017). Relationship between alpha rhythm and the default mode network: an EEG-fMRI study. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 34( 6), 527-533.
6.
BruyasM. P.DumontL. (2013). Sensitivity of Detection Response Task (DRT) to the driving demand and task difficulty. 7th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design. Symposium presented at Bolton Landing, N.Y., June 17–20, 2013.
7.
BiondiF. N.LohaniM.HopmanR.MillsS.CooperJ. M.StrayerD. L. (2018, September). 80 MPH and out-of-the-loop: Effects of real-world semi-automated driving on driver workload and arousal. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 1878-1882).
8.
ChuangC. H.CaoZ.KingJ. T.WuB. S.WangY. K.LinC. T. (2018). Brain electrodynamic and hemodynamic signatures against fatigue during driving. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 12, 181.
9.
CohenR. A. (2011). Yerkes–Dodson Law. In KreutzerJ. S.DeLucaJ.CaplanB. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology, 2737–2738.
10.
CooperJ. M.CastroS. C.StrayerD. L. (2016). Extending the Detection Response Task to simultaneously measure cognitive and visual task demands. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60(1), 1962-1966.
11.
DelormeA.MakeigS. (2004). EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134(1), 9-21.
12.
FischerP. (2016). Wake Up Call! Understanding Drowsy Driving and What States Can Do. Governors Highway Safety Association. Washington, DC.
13.
FoxeJ. J.SnyderA. C. (2011). The role of alpha-band brain oscillations as a sensory suppression mechanism during selective attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 154.
14.
GrattonG.ColesM. G.DonchinE. (1983). A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 55( 4), 468-484.
15.
International Organization for Standardization (2016). Road vehicles – Transport information and control systems – Detection response task (DRT) for assessing attentional effects of cognitive load in driving (Rep. ISO 17488) Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization. ISO/TC 22/SC 39.
16.
KäthnerI.WriessneggerS. C.Müller-PutzG. R.KüblerA.HalderS. (2014). Effects of mental workload and fatigue on the P300, alpha and theta band power during operation of an ERP (P300) brain-computer interface. Biological Psychology, 102, 118-129.
17.
KruschkeJ. K. (2011). Bayesian assessment of null values via parameter estimation and model comparison. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 299–312.
18.
LeeM, D.WagenmakersE-J (2014). Bayesian cognitive modeling: a practical course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
LohaniM.PayneB. R.StrayerD. L. (2019). A review of psychophysiological measures to assess cognitive states in real-world driving. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13.
20.
MehlerB.ReimerB.WangY. (2011). A Comparison of Heart Rate and Heart Rate Variability Indices in Distinguishing Single-Task Driving and Driving Under Secondary Cognitive Workload. Driving Assessment Conference, 590–597.
21.
MunS.WhangM.ParkS.ParkM.C. (2017). Effects of mental workload on involuntary attention: A somatosensory ERP study. Neuropsychologia, 106, 7–20.
22.
QuintanaD. S.WilliamsD. R. (2018). Bayesian alternatives for common null-hypothesis significance tests in psychiatry: a non-technical guide using JASP. BMC Psychiatry, 18(1), 178.
23.
SAE (2016). Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles (Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice: Superseding J3016 Jan 2014), SAE International.
24.
TefftB. C. (2012). Prevalence of motor vehicle crashes involving drowsy drivers, United States, 1999–2008. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 45, 180–186.
25.
YerkesR. M.DodsonJ. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology of Psychology, 18, 459-482.
26.
YoungR. A.HsiehL.SeamanS. (2013). The tactile detection response task: preliminary validation for measuring the attentional effects of cognitive load. Proceedings of the Seventh International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, 71-77.
