Influence of Driving Experience on Distraction Engagement in Automated Vehicles
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
State-of-the-art vehicle automation requires drivers to visually monitor the driving environment and the automation (through interfaces and vehicle’s actions) and intervene when necessary. However, as evidenced by recent automated vehicle crashes and laboratory studies, drivers are not always able to step in when the automation fails. Research points to the increase in distraction or secondary-task engagement in the presence of automation as a potential reason. However, previous research on secondary-task engagement in automated vehicles mainly focused on experienced drivers. This issue may be amplified for novice drivers with less driving skill. In this paper, we compared secondary-task engagement behaviors of novice and experienced drivers both in manual (non-automated) and automated driving settings in a driving simulator. A self-paced visual-manual secondary task presented on an in-vehicle display was utilized. Phase 1 of the study included 32 drivers (16 novice) who drove the simulator manually. In Phase 2, another set of 32 drivers (16 novice) drove with SAE-level-2 automation. In manual driving, there were no differences between novice and experienced drivers’ rate of manual interactions with the secondary task (i.e., taps on the display). However, with automation, novice drivers had a higher manual interaction rate with the task than experienced drivers. Further, experienced drivers had shorter average glance durations toward the task than novice drivers in general, but the difference was larger with automation compared with manual driving. It appears that with automation, experienced drivers are more conservative in their secondary-task engagement behaviors compared with novice drivers.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it