In-Vehicle Glance Duration

Abstract

In general, the unsafe conditions that are likely to produce a motor vehicle crash reside not at the mean of a given distribution (in other words, under typical conditions), but rather in the tails of the distribution. For example, an unusually slow response to a traffic obstacle, rather than an average response, may result in a collision. Although that situation means that crashes are the exception and not the norm, it has implications for how safety-critical data are approached and handled. In this current paper, experimental data collected in a driving simulator are used to demonstrate how an analysis of the average glance durations to an in-vehicle display might lead to different conclusions about safety compared with an alternative analysis of the tail end of the distribution. In addition, a model of crash risk based on the distribution of in-vehicle glances is described, as well as several characteristics of the traffic environment.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Green

Where Do Drivers Look While Driving (and for how long)? In Human Factors in Traffic Safety ( Dewar

R. E.

and Olson

P. L.

, eds.), Lawyers & Judges, Tucson, Ariz., 2002, pp. 77–110.

Wierwille

W. W.

and Tijerina

. Modelling the Relationship Between Driver In-Vehicle Visual Demands and Accident Occurrence. In Vision in Vehicles—VI ( Gale

A. G.

Brown

I. D.

Haslegrave

C. M.

and Taylor

S. P.

, eds.), Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1998, pp. 233–243.

Dingus

T. A.

Klauer

S. G.

Neale

V. L.

Petersen

Lee

S. E.

Sudweeks

Perez

M. A.

Hankey

Ramsey

Gupta

Bucher

Doerzaph

Z. R. D. D.

Jermeland

and Knipling

R. R.

. The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, Phase II—Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment. Report No. DOT HS 810 593. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 2006.

Green

Estimating Compliance with the 15-Second Rule for Driver-Interface Usability and Safety. Proc., Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, Calif., 1999.

McGehee

D. V.

New Design Guidelines Aim to Reduce Driver Distraction. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Bulletin, Vol. 44, No. 10 2001, pp. 1–3.

Lansdown

T. C.

and Fowkes

. An Investigation into the Utility of Various Metrics for the Evaluation of Driver Information Systems. In Vision in Vehicles VI ( Gale

A. G.

Brown

I. D.

Haslegrave

C. M.

and Taylor

S. P.

, eds.), Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1998, pp. 215–224.

Sodhi

Reimer

and Llamazares

. Glance Analysis of Driver Eye Movements to Evaluate Distraction. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, Vol. 34, No. 4 2002, pp. 529–538.

Victor

T. W.

Harbluk

J. L.

and Engström

J. A.

. Sensitivity of Eye-Movement Measures to In-Vehicle Task Difficulty. Transportation Research Part F, Vol. 8, 2005, pp. 167–190.

Dingus

T. A.

Hulse

M. C.

Mollenhauer

M. A.

Fleischman

R. N.

McGehee

D. V.

and Manakkal

. Effects of Age, System Experience, and Navigation Technique on Driving with an Advanced Traveler Information System. Human Factors, Vol. 39, No. 2 1997, pp. 177–199.

10.

Wickens

C. D.

Attention to Safety and the Psychology of Surprise. Proc., 2001 Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 2001.

11.

Summala

Driver/Vehicle Steering Response Latencies. Human Factors, Vol. 23, No. 6 1981, pp. 683–692.

12.

Beringer

D. B.

and Harris

H. C.

. Automation in General Aviation: Two Studies of Pilot Responses to Autopilot Malfunctions. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 2 1999, pp. 155–174.

13.

Fadden

Ververs

P. M.

and Wickens

C. D.

. Pathway HUDs: Are They Viable? Human Factors, Vol. 43, No. 2 2001, pp. 173–193.

14.

Fischer

Haines

R. F.

and Price

T. A.

. Cognitive Issues in Head-Up Displays. Publication NASA Technical Paper 1711. NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., 1980.

15.

Wickens

C. D.

and Long

. Object Versus Space-Based Models of Visual Attention: Implications for the Design of Head-Up Displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, Vol. 1, No. 3 1995, pp. 179–193.

16.

Wickens

C. D.

Commonsense Statistics. Ergonomics in Design, Vol. 6, Oct. 1998, pp. 18–22.

17.

Horrey

W. J.

and Wickens

C. D.

. Focal and Ambient Visual Contributions and Driver Visual Scanning in Lane Keeping and Hazard Detection. Proc., Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, Calif., 2004, pp. 2325–2329.

18.

Horrey

W. J.

Wickens

C. D.

and Consalus

K. P.

. Modeling Drivers’ Visual Attention Allocation While Interacting with In-Vehicle Technologies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, Vol. 12, No. 2 2006, pp. 67–78.

19.

Klasson

A Generalised Crosswind Model for Vehicle Simulation Purposes. Vehicle System Dynamics, Vol. 37, 2002, pp. 350–359.

20.

Wierwille

W. W.

Visual and Manual Demands of In-Car Controls and Displays. In Automotive Ergonomics ( Peacock

and Karwowski

, eds.), Taylor and Francis, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 299–320.

21.

Karsh

and Breitenbach

F. W.

. Looking at the Amorphous Fixation Measure. In Eye Movements and Psychological Functions: International Views ( Groner

Menz

Fisher

D. F.

and Monty

R. A.

, eds.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., 1983, pp. 53–64.

22.

Young

L. R.

and Sheena

. Survey of Eye Movement Recording Methods. Behavioral Research Methods and Instrumentation, Vol. 7, No. 5 1975, pp. 397–429.

23.

Tsimhoni

and Green

. Visual Demands of Driving and the Execution of Display-Intensive In-Vehicle Tasks. Proc., Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, Calif., 2001, pp. 1586–1590.

24.

Gellatly

A. W.

and Kleiss

J. A.

. Visual Attention Demand Evaluation of Conventional and Multifunction In-Vehicle Information Systems. Proc., IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, Calif., 2000, pp. 3:282–285.

25.

Senders

The Human Operator as a Monitor and Controller of Multi-degree of Freedom Systems. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, Vol. HFE-5, 1964, pp. 2–6.

26.

Senders

J. W.

A Re-Analysis of the Pilot Eye-Movement Data. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, Vol. HFE-7, No. 2, 1966, pp. 103–106.

27.

Senders

J. W.

Visual Sampling Processes. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., 1983.

28.

Carbonell

J. R.

Ward

J. L.

and Senders

J. W.

. A Queuing Model of Visual Sampling Experimental Validation. IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, Vol. MMS-9, No. 3, 1968, pp. 82–87.

29.

Moray

Monitoring Behavior and Supervisory Control. In Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, Volume 2 ( Boff

K. R.

Kaufman

and Thomas

J. P.

, eds.), John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1986, pp. 40.1–40.51.

30.

Wickens

C. D.

Goh

Helleburg

Horrey

W. J.

and Talleur

D. A.

. Attentional Models of Multi-Task Pilot Performance Using Advanced Display Technology. Human Factors, Vol. 45, No. 3 2003, pp. 360–380.

31.

Wickens

C. D.

The Effects of Control Dynamics on Performance. In Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, Volume 2 ( Boff

K. R.

Kaufman

and Thomas

J. P.

, eds.), John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1986, pp. 39.1–39.60.

32.

McRuer

D. T.

Human Dynamics in Man-Machine Systems. Automatica, Vol. 16, 1980, pp. 237–253.