The Influence of Visual-Manual Distractions on Anticipatory Driving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate how anticipatory driving is influenced by distraction. BACKGROUND: The anticipation of future events in traffic can allow potential gains in recognition and response times. Anticipatory actions (i.e., control actions in preparation for potential traffic changes) have been found to be more prevalent among experienced drivers in simulator studies when driving was the sole task. Despite the prevalence of visual-manual distractions and their negative effects on road safety, their influence on anticipatory driving has not yet been investigated beyond hazard anticipation. METHODS: A simulator experiment was conducted with 16 experienced and 16 novice drivers. Half of the participants were provided with a self-paced visual-manual secondary task presented on a dashboard display. RESULTS: More anticipatory actions were observed among experienced drivers; experienced drivers also exhibited more efficient visual scanning behaviors as indicated by higher glance rates toward and percent times looking at cues that facilitate the anticipation of upcoming events. Regardless of experience, those with the secondary task displayed reduced anticipatory actions and paid less attention toward anticipatory cues. However, experienced drivers had lower odds of exhibiting long glances toward the secondary task compared to novices. Further, the inclusion of glance duration on anticipatory cues increased the accuracy of a model predicting anticipatory actions based on on-road glance durations. CONCLUSION: The results provide additional evidence to existing literature supporting the role of driving experience and distraction engagement in anticipatory driving. APPLICATION: These findings can guide the design of in-vehicle systems and guide training programs to support anticipatory driving.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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".