Hsieh L, Young RA, Bowyer SM, Moran JE, Genik II RJ, Green CC, Chiang Y-R, Yu Y-J, Liao C-C, Seaman S (2009). Conversation effects on neural ...
Development of the Enhanced Peripheral Detection Task: A Surrogate Test for Driver Distraction Driving Performance from Lab to Car
Li Hsieh1, Richard Young2 & Sean Seaman1,2 Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders1 Wayne State University School of Medicine2
1
PAPER #2012-01-0965
What is Driver Distraction? “The diversion of attention away from activities critical for safe driving toward a competing activity, which may result in insufficient or no attention to activities critical for safe driving.” Regan, M. A., Hallett, C., & Gordon, C. P. (2011). Driver distraction and driver inattention: Definition, relationship and taxonomy. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 1771-1781.
2
PAPER #2012-01-0965
Cognitive Distraction Prevalence
Low (1.4%): The 100-car “naturalistic” driving study conducted found only one crash out of 69 (1.4%) related to cognitive distraction (“lost in thought”), and no “looked but did not see” crashes (Dingus et al., 2006).
◦ When driving are adjusted to control for part-time driving, the relative risk of cellular phones while crashing is close to one (Young, 2012; SAE 2012 paper#201201-0967).
Medium (about 25%): Treat et al. (1979, p. 12) found that “looked-but-didnot-see” errors were a definite or probable cause of crashes in about 25% of all crashes involving drivers over 65, and about 12% for drivers younger than 65. High (up to 50%): cognitive distraction from cellular conversation degrades driver performance more than drunk driving (Strayer et al., 2003). ◦ “Estimates indicate that drivers using cell phones look but fail to see up to 50 percent of the information in their driving environment” (Strayer , 2007).
3
PAPER #2012-01-0965
Detection Response Task (DRT)
The Detection Response Task (DRT) is a potential method for assessing cognitive distraction while driving.
In 2009, NHTSA recommended the Peripheral Detection Task (PDT) for measuring driver distraction (Ranney, T. 2009). ◦ The PDT was renamed as Detection Response Task (DRT) in order to assess selective attention in object event detection across various modalities while driving, such as visual, auditory, tactile and haptic events.
Since 2009, the DRT has been under consideration for adoption as an ISO standard surrogate test for driver performance for new telematics designs (The working forum documented under ISO TC22/SC13/WG8).
4
PAPER #2012-01-0965
Enhanced Peripheral Detection Test-I (EPDT-I) Long Conversation
Fixation 0s
126 s Driving
Short Conversation
Fixation 12 s
Driving
Fixation
No Conversation
Driving
Fixation
Blocked Condition
Conversation
Light event detection 5
PAPER #2012-01-0965
MRI Findings
Hsieh L, Young RA, Bowyer SM, Moran JE, Genik II RJ, Green CC, Chiang Y-R, Yu Y-J, Liao C-C, Seaman S (2009). Conversation effects on neural mechanisms underlying reaction time to visual events while viewing a driving video: An fMRI study. Brain Research, 1251, 162-175.
MEG Findings (1) Right Superior Parietal Region – a strong association with RT appeared ~240 ms after brake light, averaged across all subjects. Right superior parietal region is an association area where higher functioning and integration of multiple sensory inputs occurs (i.e. visual and motor). (2) Increased modulation with RT in the right parietal region (Red Arrow) during no-conversation condition. (3) Less modulation with RT in the same region during conversation. Bowyer SM, Hsieh L, Moran JE, Young RA, Manoharan A, Liao CJ, Malladi K, Yu Y-J, Chiang Y-R, Tepley N (2009). Conversation effects on neural mechanisms underlying reaction time to visual events while viewing a driving scene using MEG. Brain Research, 1251, 151-161.
(A) No-Conversation
(B) Conversation
Enhanced Peripheral Detection Test-II (EPDT-II); also called “Wayne State Enhanced DRT (EDRT)” Primary Task Attend to a high-definition video of a real driving scene; steer to keep marker in center of lane. EDRT Task Only one Light Event (green or red) appears at a time with the Inter-Stimulus Interval of 3 to 5 seconds. Light Event lasts for 1.5 seconds or when subject gave a response before 1.5 seconds post-onset pf the light event. Instructions to Subjects: First priority: Watch driving video and steer to stay in lane. Second priority: Respond to all red lights with foot presses; do not respond to green lights. 8
PAPER #2012-01-0965
Analysis of Detection Reaction Times: Conversation effect in the lab, on road and MRI scanner 900 800 700
Baseline
*
*
Neutral Angry
*
*
RT (msec)
600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Center
Lab
Left
Center
Car
Left
9
PAPER #2012-01-0965
EEG Study on Driving and Cellular Conversations in Lab and on Road N200 N200
Angry
Neutral No Conversation
64-channel waveguard EEG was recorded during lab and car testing. Conversations evoke modulation of N200 and P300 signals, associated with attention.
P300 P300 10
PAPER #2012-01-0965
Analysis of EEG signals: N200 and P300 Conversation effect on driving in the lab 0
2.5
Baseline
No Speech
Neutral Speech
Angry Speech 2 Max. Amplitude (µV)
Min. Amplitude (µV)
-0.5
-1
+ -1.5
1.5
++
1
N20 0
Back Mid Front
+
-
+
-2
-2.5
P30 0
0.5
-
0
++
Baseline
+
No Speech
Neutral Speech
Angry Speech
ANOVA analyses (Position, Condition) at p < 0.05; Number of subjects = 20
11
PAPER #2012-01-0965
fMRI Findings: Neural correlates of conversation effect while driving Conversation vs. Driving Only (No Conversation)
Increased activations: + Bil. temporal lobes + L. inferior frontal gyrus + L. middle frontal gyrus + L. Frontal eye field Decreased activations: - R. inferior parietal lobe - cuneus
Threshold = t > 3.2; p < 0.002; Number of subjects = 10
fMRI Findings: Neural correlates of emotional conversations while driving Angry Conversation – Neutral Conversation
Increased activations: + R. Prefrontal Gyrus + R. Mid Frontal Gyrus (BA10) + R. Insular + R. Superior Temporal Gyrus + R. Paracentral lobule (BA5) + R. Claustrum +R Inferior Parietal Lobe (BA40)
Decreased activations: - L. Frontal Operculum - L. Lingual Gyrus (BA18) - L. Parahippocampal gyrus (BA28).
Threshold = t > 2.8; p < 0.006; ; Number of subjects = 10
Correlation Analysis of Road vs. Lab performance: Mean brake RTs across subjects for 18 task segments
(adopted from Young et al., 2009) 14
PAPER #2012-01-0965
Discussion
Consistent with previous studies, we found that hands-free cellular phone conversations give rise to slightly longer behavioral reaction times for visual event detection during simulated driving in the lab and on-road driving. The ERP and fMRI brain imaging results also confirmed that cellular conversations increases brain activation in language and attention areas. The brain regions associated with the changes in response times for visual events have been identified based on current studies using MEG and fMRI [Bowyer et al., 2009; Hsieh et al., 2009] and EEG recordings [Hsieh et al., 2010; Seaman, et al., 2010]. - The MEG and MRI studies showed that the right superior parietal lobe mediates the reaction times to a visual event while multitasking of driving and hands-free cell phone conversations. - The EEG study indicated that dual task conditions elicited the right fronto-parietal networks and dampened the left frontal activity. The on road study validated the Wayne State EDRT as a sensitive and ecological task with a high lab-to-road predictive validity at 0.9 correlations. 15
PAPER #2012-01-0965
Conclusions
The Wayne State EDRT is a sensitive and up-to-date surrogate test for measuring selective attention while driving. This task provides a simple, easy to learn and run, and convenient platform to assess driver distraction for use in the lab, road, or brain imaging environments.
The neural mechanism may be linked to an early central negativity and later posterior positivity, or an enhanced “readiness to respond” in central and posterior cortical regions linked to attention.
This EDRT task allows us to investigate more detailed cognitive components of driver distraction, as well as neurological processes of attention networks in the brain (e.g., alerting, orienting, executive attention).
These neuroimaging findings could have significant impact on the testing and design of in-car speech and/or telematics interfaces.
16
PAPER #2012-01-0965
References Regan, M. A., Hallett, C., & Gordon, C. P. (2011). Driver distraction and driver inattention: Definition, relationship and taxonomy. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 1771-1781. Dingus, T.A., Klauer, S.G., Neale, V.L., Petersen, A., Lee, S.E., Sudweeks, J., Perez, M.A., Hankey, J., Ramsey, D., Gupta, S., Bucher, C., Doerzaph, Z.R., Jermeland, J., and Knipling, R.R., "The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, Phase II–Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment," DOT HS 810 593, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 2006. Young, R.. What is Cognitive Distraction and to What Extent does it Cause Crashes? SAE 2012 World Congress Meeting, #2012-010967. Treat, J.R., Tumbas, N.S., McDonald, S.T., Shinar, D., Hume, R.D., Mayer, R.E., Stansifer, R.L., and Castellan, N.J., (1979). "Tri-Level Study of the Causes of Traffic Accidents," DOT HS-805 099, US. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 1979. Strayer, D.L., Drews, F.A., and Crouch, D.J., (2003)."Fatal Distraction? A Comparison of the Cell-Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver," Second International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design, Park City, Utah. Strayer, D. L. (2007, February 28). Presentation at Cell Phones and Driver Distraction. Traffic Safety Coalition, Washington DC. Ranney, T., "Measuring Distraction Potential of Operating in-Vehicle Devices," DOT HS 811 231, Washington, D.C., USA, 2009, Hsieh, L., Young, R.A., Bowyer, S.M., Moran, J.E., Genik II, R.J., Green, C.C., Chiang, Y.R., Yu, Y.J., Liao, C.C., and Seaman, S., "Conversation Effects on Neural Mechanisms Underlying Reaction Time to Visual Events While Viewing a Driving Scene: fMRI Analysis and Asynchrony Model," Brain Research 1251:162-75, 2009. Bowyer, S.M., Hsieh, L., Moran, J.E., Young, R.A., Manoharan, A., Liao, C.-J., Malladi, K.., Yu, Y.-J., Chiang, Y.-R., and Tepley, N., "Conversation Effects on Neural Mechanisms Underlying Reaction Time to Visual Events While Viewing a Driving Scene Using Meg," Brain Research 1251:151-61, 2009, Young, R. A., Angell, L., Sullivan, J. M., Seaman, S., & Hsieh, L. (2009). Validation of the static load test for event detection during hands-free conversation. Proceedings of the Fifth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, 5, 268-275. Hsieh, L., Seaman, S., Sullivan, J., Bowyer, S., Moran, J., Jiang, Q., Angell, L. & Young, R. (2010). “Neural Basis of Conversation and Emotion Effect on Driving from Lab to On-Road: fMRI and ERP Studies,” Human Brain Mapping Annual Meeting in Barcelona, Spain. Seaman, S., Hsieh, L., Wu, L. & Young, R.A. (2010), “Neural basis of emotional modulation while multitasking: ERP analysis,” Cognitive 17 Neuroscience Society, 17th Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada.
Acknowledgements Special thanks to –
Drs. Susan Bowyer and John Moran of Henry Ford Hospital for consultation on the EEG recordings; Dr. Quan Jiang of Henry Ford Hospital for fMRI data collection; Drs. John Sullivan, Michael Flannagan and Michael Sivak at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute for on-road data collection; Dr. Linda Angell of VTTI for technical consultation on driver performance metrics and experimental design.
Funding source:
Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership (CAMP), 2004-2005 Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC), 2005 to 2009.
18
PAPER #2012-01-0965
