The values on parameters describing longitudinal driving behavior in car-following models differ substantially between drivers. Different individual interactions with the environment are assumed to play an important role, which might be explained through mental workload. Therefore a driving simulator experiment with a repeated measures design was performed to investigate to what extent perception of an incident in the other driving lane influences physiological indicators as well as subjective estimates of mental workload and longitudinal driving behavior. As almost none of the current models of car-following behavior incorporate mental workload as a determinant of driving behavior, an investigation was conducted by using a calibration approach for joint estimation to determine whether these models, represented by the intelligent driver model and the Helly model, adequately described longitudinal driving behavior in case of incidents in the other driving lane. The results indicated that perception of an incident in the other driving lane influenced mental workload as measured by physiological indicators and longitudinal driving behavior. In addition, the results indicated that current car-following models did not adequately describe driving behavior in case of incidents in the other driving lane.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrackstoneM., and MacDonaldM.Car-Following: A Historical Review. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 2, 1999, pp. 181–196.
2.
OssenS. J., and HoogendoornS. P.Validity of Trajectory-Based Calibration Approach of Car-Following Models in Presence of Measurement Errors. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2088, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 117–125.
3.
BoerE.Car-Following from the Driver's Perspective. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 2, 1999, pp. 201–206.
4.
DijkerT., BovyP. H. L., and VermijsR. G. M. M.Car-Following Under Congested Conditions: Empirical Findings. In Transportation Research Record 1644, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 20–28.
5.
IbrahimA. T., and HallF. L.Effect of Adverse Weather Conditions on Speed–Flow–Occupancy Relationships. In Transportation Research Record 1457, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 184–191.
6.
ChungE., OhtaniO., WaritaH., KuwaharaM., and MoritaH.Does Weather Affect Highway Capacity? Presented at Fifth International Symposium on Highway Capacity and Quality of Service, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006.
7.
ChinS. M., FransezeO., GreeneD. L., and HwangH. L.Temporary Losses of Highway Capacity and Impacts on Performance.Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., 2002.
8.
OhJ. S., ShimY. U., and ChoY. H.Effect of Weather Conditions to Traffic Flow on Freeway. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 6, 2002, pp. 413–420.
9.
KnapperA., and BrookhuisK. A.Field Research Concerning Contra-Flow As a Measure for Massive Evacuation. Proc. ICEM 2009, First International Conference on Evacuation Modeling and Management. In press.
KnoopV. L., HoogendoornS. P., and van ZuylenH. J.Capacity Reduction at Incidents: Empirical Data Collected from a Helicopter. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2071, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 19–25.
12.
TreiberM., HenneckeA., and HelbingD.Congested Traffic States in Empirical Observations and Microscopic Simulations. Physical Review E, Vol. 62, 2000, pp. 1805–1824.
13.
HellyW.Dynamics of Single-Lane Vehicular Traffic Flow. Research Report No. 2. Center for Operations Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., 1959.
14.
MulderL. J. M., De WaardD., and BrookhuisK. A.Estimating Mental Effort Using Heart Rate and Heart Rate Variability. In Handbook of Ergonomics and Human Factor Methods (StantonN., HedgeA., HendrickH. W., BrookhuisK. A., and SalasE., eds.), Taylor & Francis, London, 2004.
15.
WientjesC. J. E., and GrossmanP.Measurement of Respiration in Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics Research. In Handbook of Ergonomics and Human Factor Methods (StantonN., HedgeA., HendrickH. W., BrookhuisK. A., and SalasE., eds.), Taylor & Francis, London, 2004.
16.
WaterinkW.Facial Muscle Activity As an Index of Energy Mobilisation During Processes of Information.Tilburg University, Delft, Netherlands, 1997.
17.
BrookhuisK. A., Van DrielC. J. G., HofT., van AremB., and HoedemakerM.Driving with a Congestion Assistant: Mental Workload and Acceptance. Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 40, No. 6, 2009, pp. 1019–1025.
18.
WientjesC. J. E., GrossmanP., and GaillairdA. W. K.Influence of Drive and Timing Mechanisms on Breathing Pattern and Ventilation During Mental Task Performance. Biological Psychology, Vol. 49, 1998, pp. 53–70.
19.
ZijlstraF. R. H.Efficiency in Work Behavior. A Design Approach for Modern Tools.Delft University Press, Delft, Netherlands, 1993.
20.
HoogendoornS., and HoogendoornR. G.Generic Calibration Framework for Joint Estimation of Car-Following Models Using Microscopic Data. Presented at 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010.
21.
RumarK.The Basic Driving Error: Late Detection. Ergonomics, Vol. 33, 1990, pp. 1281–1290.
22.
WickensC. D.Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, 2nd ed.Harper & Row, New York, 1992.
23.
HorreyW. D., and WickensC. D.Multiple Resources Modeling of Task Interference in Vehicle Control, Hazard Awareness and In-Vehicle Task Performance. Proc. the Second International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, Park City, Utah, 2003, pp. 7–12.
24.
BrookhuisK. A., De VriesG., and De WaardD.The Effects of Mobile Telephoning on Driving Performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 23, 1991, pp. 309–316.
25.
MakishitaH., and MatsunagaK.Differences of Drivers' Reaction Times According to Age and Mental Workload. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 40, 2008, pp. 567–575.
26.
HorreyW. J., LeschM. F., and GarabetA.Dissociation Between Driving Performance and Drivers' Subjective Estimates of Performance and Workload in Dual Task Conditions. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 40, 2009, pp. 7–12.
27.
GippsJ.A Behavioral Car-Following Model for Computer Simulation. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 15, 1981, pp. 105–111.
28.
TampereC.Human-Kinetic Multiclass Traffic Flow Theory and Modelling.TRIAL Thesis Series, Delft, Netherlands, 2004.
29.
ReimerB., D'AmbrosioL., CoughlinJ., KafrissenM., and BiedermanJ.Using Self-Reported Data to Assess the Validity of Driving Simulator Data. Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 38, 2006, pp. 312–324.
30.
YanX., Abdel-AtyM., RadwanE., WangX., and ChilakapatiP.Validating a Driving Simulator Using Surrogate Safety Measures. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 40, 2008, pp. 274–288.
31.
SagbergF., and BjornskauT.Hazard Perception and Driving Experience Among Novice Drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 38, 2006, pp. 407–414.
32.
MulderL. J. M., and MulderG.Cardiovascular Reactivity and Mental Workload. In The Beat-by-Beat Investigation of Cardiovascular Function (RompelmanO., and KitneyR. I., eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1987, pp. 216–253.
33.
TabachnickB., and FidelL.Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th ed.Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Mass., 2001.
34.
HoogendoornS. P., and OssenS.Parameter Estimation and Analysis of Car-Following Models. In Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Traffic and Transportation Theory (MahmassaniH., ed.), College Park, Md., 2005.
35.
HoogendoornS. P., OssenS., and SchreuderM.Properties of a Microscopic Heterogeneous Multi-Anticipative Car-Following Model. In Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory, 2007.
