Behavioral Research and Practical Models of Drivers' Attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Driving is a routine activity for many, but it is far from simple. Drivers deal with multiple concurrent tasks, such as keeping the vehicle in the lane, observing and anticipating the actions of other road users, reacting to hazards, and dealing with distractions inside and outside the vehicle. Failure to notice and respond to the surrounding objects and events can cause accidents. The ongoing improvements of the road infrastructure and vehicle mechanical design have made driving safer overall. Nevertheless, the problem of driver inattention has remained one of the primary causes of accidents. Therefore, understanding where the drivers look and why they do so can help eliminate sources of distractions and identify unsafe attention patterns. Research on driver attention has implications for many practical applications such as policy-making, improving driver education, enhancing road infrastructure and in-vehicle infotainment systems, as well as designing systems for driver monitoring, driver assistance, and automated driving. This report covers the literature on changes in drivers' visual attention distribution due to factors, internal and external to the driver. Aspects of attention during driving have been explored across multiple disciplines, including psychology, human factors, human-computer interaction, intelligent transportation, and computer vision, each offering different perspectives, goals, and explanations for the observed phenomena. We link cross-disciplinary theoretical and behavioral research on driver's attention to practical solutions. Furthermore, limitations and directions for future research are discussed. This report is based on over 175 behavioral studies, nearly 100 practical papers, 20 datasets, and over 70 surveys published since 2010. A curated list of papers used for this report is available at \url{https://github.com/ykotseruba/attention_and_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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".