Objective: The cognitive workload of three Smartphone Digital Assistants (SDA) was manipulated in an on-off manner while participants drove an instrumented vehicle in order to measure the costs associated with intermittent dual tasking. Background: Previous research has shown costs in productivity when switching between two discrete tasks; however, similar costs have not yet been examined using intermittent, continuous dual tasks. Methods: Participating drivers completed 5 conditions: baseline driving, 3 SDA conditions, and a cognitively demanding math-memory operation span (OSPAN) task, each while responding to Detection Response Task (DRT) stimuli. Within the SDA conditions, on- and off-task DRT performance was compared to baseline driving and to the OSPAN task performance. Results: The on-task periods of the SDA conditions resulted in similar RTs as the OSPAN condition, while the off-task periods did not immediately return to baseline driving performance. Post hoc analyses of the on-off transitions within the SDA conditions revealed a gradual return to baseline driving performance over the course of 18 seconds. Conclusions: The delays in returning to baseline driving performance after completing a secondary task raise concerns about the usage of in-vehicle devices while driving as the effects of the delays last beyond the cessation of the SDA interaction.
References
1.
AllportD. A.StylesE. A.HsiehS. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In UmiltàC.MoscovitchM.UmiltàC.MoscovitchM. (Eds.), Attention and performance 15: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421-452). Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.
2.
AltmannE. M.GrayW. D. (2008). An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Review, 115(3), 602-639. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.3.602
3.
Cardoso-LeiteP.GreenC. S.BavelierD. (2015). On the impact of new technologies on multitasking. Developmental Review, 3598-112. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.001
4.
EndsleyM. R. (2000). Theoretical underpinnings of situation awareness: A critical review. In EndsleyM. R.GarlandD. J. (Eds.), Situation awareness analysis and measurement (pp. 3–28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
EvansL. H.HerronJ. E.WildingE. L. (2015). Direct Real-Time Neural Evidence for Task-Set Inertia. Psychological Science (Sage Publications Inc.), 26(3), 284-290. doi:10.1177/0956797614561799
6.
GartenbergD.BreslowL.McCurryJ. M.TraftonJ. G. (2014). Situation Awareness Recovery. Human Factors, 56(4), 710-727. doi:10.1177/0018720813506223
7.
HarblukJ. L.NoyY.TrbovichP. L.EizenmanM. (2007). An on-road assessment of cognitive distraction: Impacts on drivers’ visual behavior and braking performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39, 372-379. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2006.08.013
8.
IshiharaS. (1993). Ishihara's test for color-blindness. Tokyo: Kanehara.
9.
ISO DIS 17488 (2015). Road Vehicles -Transport information and control systems - Detection Response Task (DRT) for assessing selective attention in driving. Draft International Standard, ISO TC 22/SC39/WG8.
10.
MonsellS.SumnerP.WatersH. (2003). Task-set reconfiguration with predictable and unpredictable task switches. Memory & Cognition, 31(3), 327-342. doi:10.3758/BF03194391
11.
PashlerH.JohnstonJ. C.RuthruffE. (2001). Attention and performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 52629-651. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.629
12.
RecarteM. A.NunesL. M. (2003). Mental workload while driving: Effects on visual search, discrimination, and decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 119-137. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.9.2.119
13.
ReimerB. (2009). Impact of cognitive task complexity on drivers’ visual tunneling. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2138, 13–19.
14.
RogersR. D.MonsellS. D. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 124(2), 207.
15.
SanbonmatsuD. M.StrayerD. L.Medeiros-WardN.WatsonJ. M. (2013). Who Multi-Tasks and Why? Multi-Tasking Ability, Perceived Multi-Tasking Ability, Impulsivity, and Sensation Seeking. Plos ONE, 8(1), 1-8. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054402
16.
StrayerD. L.FisherD. L. (2015). SPIDER: A framework for understanding driver distraction. Human Factors, Vol. XX, No. X, Month XXXX, pp. 1 –8. DOI: 10.1177/0018720815619074
17.
StrayerD. L.TurrillJ.ColemanJ. R.OrtizE. V.CooperJ. M. (2014). Measuring cognitive distraction in the automobile II: Assessing in-vehicle voice-based interactive technologies. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
18.
StrayerD. L.TurrillJ.CooperJ. M.ColemanJ. R.Medeiros-WardN.BiondiF. (2015). Assessing cognitive distraction in the automobile. Human Factors, 57(8), 1300-1324. doi:10.1177/0018720815575149
19.
StrayerD. L.WatsonJ. M.DrewsF. A. (2011). Cognitive distraction while multitasking in the automobile. In RossB. H.RossB. H. (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol 54) (pp. 29-58). San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic Press.