skip to main content
10.1145/3580585.3607170acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesautomotiveuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Investigating Various Dynamics in the Box Task Combined With a Detection Response Task: Are There Performance Differences Between Uniform and Non-uniform Box Dynamics?

Published: 18 September 2023 Publication History

Abstract

The Box Task combined with a Detection Response Task (BT + DRT) is a relatively less investigated but promising method for evaluating visual-manual and cognitive task demand due to the interaction with in-vehicle information systems while driving. The BT includes the tracking of a dynamic box whose size and position follow a sinusoidal pattern with uniform amplitudes and frequencies. However, it is unclear whether participants are able to predict and adapt to these uniform dynamics, which might lead to a reduced sensitivity of the BT + DRT. Within the present study, it was aimed to examine differences in BT + DRT performance depending on uniform and non-uniform BT dynamics. A laboratory study was conducted with N = 41 participants. The experimental conditions differed in the type and difficulty level of the secondary tasks as well as in the BT dynamics (uniform, varying amplitude, varying frequency). While the uniform BT dynamics could be more predictable, the non-uniform BT dynamics were designed slightly easier in their difficulty using a lower frequency or amplitude. The results revealed no performance benefits when performing uniform BT dynamics compared to non-uniform BT dynamics. The frequency BT condition was related to a significantly lower variability of box position and higher gaze duration on the secondary task compared to the uniform BT dynamics. These findings suggest that participants are not or only negligible able to adapt to the uniform BT dynamics. Therefore, it is recommended to use the uniform BT dynamics as suggested and implemented in previous studies.

References

[1]
Antonia Conti, Carsten Dlugosch, Roman Vilimek, Andreas Keinath, and Klaus Bengler. 2012. An assessment of cognitive workload using detection response tasks. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics.
[2]
Antonia Conti-Kufner. 2017. Measuring cognitive task load: An evaluation of the Detection Response Task and its implications for driver distraction assessment [PhD Thesis]. https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/node?id=1340561
[3]
Andrew R. Conway, Michael J. Kane, Michael F. Bunting, D. Zach Hambrick, Oliver Wilhelm, and Randall W. Engle. 2005. Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12, 5, 769–786. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772
[4]
Sandra G. Hart, and Lowell E. Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. In Advances in Psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 139–183). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9
[5]
Li Hsieh, and Sean Seaman. n.d. Evaluation of the Two-Dimensional Secondary Task Demand Assessment Method.
[6]
ISO 17488. 2016. Road vehicles—Transport information and control systems—Detection Response Task (DRT) for assessing attentional effects of cognitive load in driving.
[7]
ISO 26022. 2010. Road Vehicles—Ergonomic Aspects of Transport Information and Control Systems—Simulated Lane Change Test to Assess In-Vehicle Secondary Task Demand.
[8]
Stefan Mattes, and Anders Hallén. 2009. Surrogate distraction measurement techniques: The lane change test. Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation, 107–121.
[9]
Tina Morgenstern, Daniel Trommler, Yannick Forster, Frederik Naujoks, Sebastian Hergeth, Josef F. Krems, and Andreas Keinath. 2020. Measuring Driver Distraction with the Box Task – A Summary of Two Experimental Studies. In HCI in Mobility, Transport, and Automotive Systems. Driving Behavior, Urban and Smart Mobility (Vol. 12213, pp. 51–60). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50537-0_5
[10]
Tina Morgenstern, Daniel Trommler, Frederik Naujoks, Ines Karl, Josef F. Krems, and Andreas Keinath. 2023. Comparing the sensitivity of the box task combined with the detection response task to the lane change test. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 93, 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2023.01.004
[11]
Tina Morgenstern, Elisabeth M. Wögerbauer, Frederik Naujoks, Josef F. Krems, and Andreas Keinath. 2020. Measuring driver distraction – Evaluation of the box task method as a tool for assessing in-vehicle system demand. Applied Ergonomics 88, 103181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103181
[12]
Emanuel Schmider, Matthias Ziegler, Erik Danay, Luzi Beyer, and Markus Bühner. 2010. Is It Really Robust?: Reinvestigating the Robustness of ANOVA Against Violations of the Normal Distribution Assumption. Methodology 6, 4, 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000016
[13]
Daniel Trommler, Tina Morgenstern, Cornelia Hollander, Ines Karl, Frederik Naujoks, Josef F. Krems, and Andreas Keinath. 2022. Evidence accumulation modeling for the Detection Response Task when combined with the Box Task. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention, 74–77.
[14]
Daniel Trommler, Tina Morgenstern, Cornelia Hollander, Ines Karl, Frederik Naujoks, Josef F. Krems, and Andreas Keinath. 2022. Investigating the Influence of Working Memory Processes on the Box Task combined with a Detection Response Task. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1002460
[15]
Daniel Trommler, Tina Morgenstern, Elisabeth M. Wögerbauer, Frederik Naujoks, Josef F. Krems, and Andreas Keinath. 2021. The box task—A method for assessing in-vehicle system demand. MethodsX 8, 101261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101261
[16]
Kristie Young, Michael Regan, and Mike Hammer. 2007. Driver distraction: A review of the literature. Distracted Driving, 379–405.
[17]
Richard Young, Sean Seaman, and Li Hsieh. 2016. The Dimensional Model of Driver Demand: Visual-Manual Tasks. SAE International Journal of Transportation Safety 4, 1, 33–71. https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-1423
[18]
Tibor Petzoldt, and Josef F. Krems. 2014. How does a lower predictability of lane changes affect performance in the Lane Change Task? Applied ergonomics 45, 1218-1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.02.013
[19]
Harald E. Ewolds, Laura Bröker, Rita F. De Oliveira, Markus Raab, and Stefan Künzell. 2017. Implicit and explicit knowledge both improve dual task performance in a continuous pursuit tracking task. Frontiers in psychology 8, 2241. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02241

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
AutomotiveUI '23: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications
September 2023
352 pages
ISBN:9798400701054
DOI:10.1145/3580585
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 18 September 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Assessment of secondary task demand
  2. Box Task
  3. Detection Response Task
  4. Driver distraction

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

AutomotiveUI '23
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 248 of 566 submissions, 44%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 83
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)43
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)6
Reflects downloads up to 14 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media