MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408142498 · doi:10.1080/15389588.2025.2463610

Examining the effects of music on visual attention and driving behaviors in male and female adolescents

2025· article· en· W4408142498 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara A. Morrongiello, Eirini K. Boutakis, Michael Corbett, Caroline Zolis

Bibliographic record

VenueTraffic Injury Prevention · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoison controlInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsOccupational safety and healthPsychologySuicide preventionApplied psychologyDevelopmental psychologyEngineeringMedical emergencyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) are a leading cause of injury-related deaths for youth 16-19 years and males experience significantly more of these events than females. This study examined how in-car listening to their favorite music influences visual attention and risky driving behaviors among males and females 17-19 years of age. METHOD: An immersive driving simulator was used to automatically measure a variety of performance indicators and video recordings provided data on attention and one-handed driving. Participants completed two 25-minute drives in which hazards unexpectedly appeared, listening to their playlist of favorite music over the radio during one of these. RESULTS: For both males and females, visual attention to the road was reduced significantly when driving with music playing. With regard to driving performance, there were no sex differences or effect of music on driving speed and hazard reaction time. For both males and females, steering performance was improved when listening to music. However, music influenced one-handed driving differentially based on sex of the driver. Males, but not females, engaged in more one-handed driving when listening to music, and this was associated with males hitting more hazards. CONCLUSION: Generally, driving with music playing poses more risk to male than female teen drivers.

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)0.000
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 score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraffic Injury PreventionSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207