On investigating drivers’ attention allocation during partially-automated driving
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of partially-automated systems require drivers to supervise the system functioning and resume manual control whenever necessary. Yet literature on vehicle automation show that drivers may spend more time looking away from the road when the partially-automated system is operational. In this study we answer the question of whether this pattern is a manifestation of inattentional blindness or, more dangerously, it is also accompanied by a greater attentional processing of the driving scene. Participants drove a simulated vehicle in manual or partially-automated mode. Fixations were recorded by means of a head-mounted eye-tracker. A surprise two-alternative forced-choice recognition task was administered at the end of the data collection whereby participants were quizzed on the presence of roadside billboards that they encountered during the two drives. Data showed that participants were more likely to fixate and recognize billboards when the automated system was operational. Furthermore, whereas fixations toward billboards decreased toward the end of the automated drive, the performance in the recognition task did not suffer. Based on these findings, we hypothesize that the use of the partially-automated driving system may result in an increase in attention allocation toward peripheral objects in the road scene which is detrimental to the drivers' ability to supervise the automated system and resume manual control of the vehicle.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it