Anticipatory Driving in Automated Vehicles: The Effects of Driving Experience and Distraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand the influence of driving experience and distraction on drivers' anticipation of upcoming traffic events in automated vehicles. BACKGROUND: In nonautomated vehicles, experienced drivers spend more time looking at cues that indicate upcoming traffic events compared with novices, and distracted drivers spend less time looking at these cues compared with nondistracted drivers. Further, pre-event actions (i.e., proactive control actions prior to traffic events) are more prevalent among experienced drivers and nondistracted drivers. However, there is a research gap on the combined effects of experience and distraction on driver anticipation in automated vehicles. METHODS: A simulator experiment was conducted with 16 experienced and 16 novice drivers in a vehicle equipped with adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping assist systems (resulting in SAE Level 2 driving automation). Half of the participants in each experience group were provided with a self-paced primarily visual-manual secondary task. RESULTS: Drivers with the task spent less time looking at cues and were less likely to perform anticipatory driving behaviors (i.e., pre-event actions or preparation for pre-event actions such as hovering fingers over the automation disengage button). Experienced drivers exhibited more anticipatory driving behaviors, but their attention toward the cues was similar to novices for both task conditions. CONCLUSION: In line with nonautomated vehicle research, in automated vehicles, secondary task engagement impedes anticipation while driving experience facilitates anticipation. APPLICATION: Though Level 2 automation can relieve drivers of manually controlling the vehicle and allow engagement in distractions, visual-manual distraction engagement can impede anticipatory driving and should be restricted.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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".