Driving Under the Influence of Phones: The Importance of Cognitive Ability and Cognitive Style on Interruption-Related Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of notifications on driving performance is a critical safety concern (Lee & Strayer, 2004). This study examined how interruptions (including phone calls) impair simulated driving performance, and how individual differences mediate the effect of those interruptions. Consistent with our hypothesis, field dependent participants answered phone calls more quickly and with less consideration of the difficulty of the current driving situation than more field independent participants. Further, a post-hoc analysis showed that, on average, field dependents with small operating spans crashed twice as often as the other drivers. Thus the detrimental effect of a field dependent style on managing interruptions while driving is likely worsened for people with low working memory capacity. It is suggested that future research should investigate the safety implications of individual differences in interruption handling ability. Such research is needed to support ongoing efforts to develop guidelines and legislation concerning the use of distracting information technologies (such as cell phones) in automobiles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".