Voluntary- and Involuntary-Distraction Engagement: An Exploratory Study of Individual Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to explore individual differences in voluntary and involuntary driver-distraction engagement. Background Distractions may stem from intentional engagement in secondary tasks (voluntary) or failing to suppress non-driving-related stimuli or information (involuntary). A wealth of literature has examined voluntary distraction; involuntary distraction is not particularly well understood. Individual factors, such as age, are known to play a role in how drivers engage in distractions. However, it is unclear which individual factors are associated with voluntary- versus involuntary-distraction engagement and whether there is a relation between how drivers engage in these two distraction types. Method Thirty-six participants, ages 25 to 39, drove in a simulator under three conditions: voluntary distraction with a self-paced visual-manual task on a secondary display, involuntary distraction with abrupt onset of irrelevant visual-audio stimuli on the secondary display, and no distraction. Results The number of glances toward the secondary display under voluntary distraction was not correlated to that under involuntary distraction. The former was associated with gender, age, annual mileage, and self-reported distraction engagement; such associations were not observed for the latter. Accelerator release time in response to lead-vehicle braking was delayed similarly under both conditions. Conclusion Propensity to engage in voluntary distractions appears to be not related to the inability of suppressing involuntary distractions. Further, voluntary and involuntary distraction both affect braking response. These findings have implications for design of in-vehicle technologies, which may be sources of both distraction types.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".