MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392745013 · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2024.02.013

Using the ISO Detection response task to measure the cognitive load of driving four separate vehicles on two distinct highways

2024· article· en· W4392745013 on OpenAlexafffund
Francesco Biondi, Amy S. McDonnell, Joel M. Cooper, David L. Strayer

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Motor Association Foundation for Traffic SafetyAAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
KeywordsWorkloadTask (project management)Measure (data warehouse)Transport engineeringCognitionCognitive loadComputer scienceSimulationPoison controlDriving simulatorEngineeringAutomotive engineeringPsychologyData miningMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ISO Detection Response Task (DRT) is a standard tool for assessing drivers’ cognitive load and it has primarily been used to measure the cognitive load of completing non-driving tasks and interacting with vehicle systems. In this study we use the DRT to measure the workload of driving four separate vehicles (a 2019 Tesla Model 3, a 2018 Cadillac CT6, a 2018 Volvo XC90, a 2019 Nissan Rogue) in manual mode and on two distinct roadways (US Interstate Highway 15 and 80) in and around Salt Lake City, UT. Results showed that the unique road characteristics of I-80 resulted in higher levels of cognitive load as demonstrated by the slower DRT response times. Likewise, different levels of workload were found across the four vehicles, with higher workload levels found for one of the four vehicles. This study expands the use of the DRT outside its original area of application, and advances it as a tool to assess the cognitive demand induced by varying road and vehicle characteristics.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.175
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and BehaviourSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207