Easy listening or driving distraction? The relationship between audiobook complexity level and driving performance on simple routes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• While driving, drivers engage in a range of secondary activities that affect their performance. • When driving in a simple environment, listening to audiobooks may improve performance. • The working memory capacity of drivers and the text complexity of audiobooks have an impact on the outcomes. • Headway variability, steering, and brake response times are all improved by listening to a simple audiobook. • Steering variability and braking times are increased when listening to complex audiobooks. • Drivers with higher working memory capacities benefit the most, but only for simple audiobooks. Drivers engage in a variety of secondary activities while driving. Research suggests that many secondary tasks interfere with driving, making performance worse as compared to single-task driving, but a recent study suggests that in simple environments (low scenery and traffic) listening to an audiobook may actually benefit driving performance. Nonetheless, these effects may vary based on both the textual complexity of the audiobook and the working memory capacity of the driver. In this study, we used a driving simulator to compare single-task driving with that when the driver was listening to an audiobook (dual-task). We manipulated the complexity of the audiobook as measured by Lexile scores (a standard index of text difficulty). Licensed drivers did two 30-minute drives on simple roads, alternating between driving while listening to an audiobook (dual-task) or single-task driving. Drivers did one drive with the simple and the other with the complex audiobook (order counterbalanced). Listening to the simple audiobook improved driving performance as compared to single-task driving: braking response times to hazards were lower, as were steering and headway variability. Conversely, listening to the complex audiobook interfered with driving; braking times to hazards and steering variability were higher when drivers were listening to the audiobook than for single-task driving. Individual differences in working memory capacity as measured by the OSPAN (Operation Span) predicted how much listening to an audiobook benefitted performance, with the highest OSPAN scorers benefitting most, though these OSPAN -related differential benefits were restricted to reduced hazard response times while listening to the simple audiobook.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".