What’s that on Your Phone? Effects of Mobile Device Task Type on Pedestrian Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of accidents due to distracted pedestrian is on the rise and many governments and institutions are enacting public policies which restrict texting while walking. However, pedestrians do more than just texting when they use their mobile devices on the go. OBJECTIVE: Exploring pedestrian multitasking, this paper aims to examine the effects of mobile device task type on pedestrian performance outcomes. METHOD: We performed two studies in lab simulations where 78 participants were asked to perform different tasks on a mobile device (playing a game, reading, writing an email, texting one person, group texting) while performing a pedestrian visual discrimination task while either standing or walking on a treadmill. Behavioral performance as well as neurophysiological data are collected. RESULTS: Results show that compared to a no-phone control, multitasking with any of the tasks on a mobile device leads to poor performance on a pedestrian visual discrimination task. Playing a game is the most cognitively demanding task and leads to the greatest performance degradation. CONCLUSION: Our studies show that multitasking with a mobile device has the potential to negatively impact pedestrian safety, regardless of task type. However, the impacts of different mobile device tasks are not all equivalent. More research is needed to tease out the different effects of these various tasks and to design mobile applications which effectively and safely capture pedestrians' attention. APPLICATION: Public policy, infrastructure, and smart technologies can be used to mitigate the negative effects of mobile multitasking. A more thorough understanding of mobile device task-specific factors at play can help tailor these counter-measures to better aid distracted pedestrians.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".