A Final Report of
SAfety VEhicles using adaptive Interface Technology (Phase II: Task 7C):
Visual Distraction
Prepared by
Harry Zhang
Matthew Smith
Robert Dufour
Delphi Electronics and Safety
Phone: (765) 451-9816
Email: matt.smith@delphi com
February 2008
Table of Contents
7.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7.1. PROGRAM OVERVIEW
7.2. Introduction
7.2. Method
7.2.1. Subjects
7.2.2. Design
7.2.3. Procedure
7.3. Results
7.3.1. Variables
7.3.2. ANOVA and Correlation Results
7.3.3. Subject-by-Subject Analyses
7.3.4. Across-Conditions Analyses
7.4. Discussion
7.5. References
7.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of Task 7 was to investigate how visual distraction impacts driving performance. Drivers have the ability to allocate their attention to various activities besides driving. Their attention to the driving task fluctuates as a function of the demand of the road and the demands of competing tasks, which distract from the main task. Given that drivers alternate between attentive driving and distracted driving, safety systems dedicated to Distraction Mitigation will require monitoring of the driver state. One of the goals of this research is to determine how drivers allocate their visual attention from one point of focus to another and to isolate a few measures which could be used to inform various countermeasure systems that the driver’s attention is away from the main driving task.
In Phase I, the research focused on determining the effects of visual distraction on drivers’ reaction times and driving performance. Two simulator experiments revealed several real-time eye-glance measures that correlate highly with accelerator release reaction time (ART) and standard deviation of lane position (SDLP). Two such measures, Eye Gaze Variability and Eye Gaze Vector (calculated over a time window), require precise eye gaze measurements that are not readily available in automotive-grade eye tracking systems. Given this limitation, these measures will not be pursued further. A third measure, Proportion of Eyes-Off-Road Glance Time, is highly correlated with driving performance (ART and SDLP) and can be measured by automotive-grade eye tracking systems. The eyes-off-road proportion is calculated as the ratio of total eyes-off-road glance time over a time window (e.g., 5 seconds). Phase I research yielded strong correlations between eyes-off-road proportion and driving performance measures. However, these correlations were computed using across-subjects data summation due to the rarity of the target events (i.e., braking to avoid collision with a lead vehicle). For real-time implementation of such a system, the research has to show that the strong correlations between these measures hold for most individual drivers.
Phase II focused on demonstrating that eyes-off-road proportion is a reliable within-subject measure that can be correlated with individual driving performance. The new experiment consisted of two 3-hour sessions and generated as many as sixteen target events for each of the subjects tested. Three other issues were also investigated: Finding threshold values for eyes-off-road proportion, exploring other diagnostic measures and further investigating display eccentricity effect (i.e., how distance away from the optical focus of expansion leads to poorer driving performance).
Method
Twelve middle-aged subjects were tested in twelve different distraction conditions. The primary task consisted of following a lead vehicle while the secondary task (distraction task) consisted of reading a varied number of words aloud. The words were presented in either the forward[1] location (five conditions) simulating information processing from the environment (e.g., street sign or license plate reading) or the words were presented in common areas that may require visual attention: high-mounted cluster, console, rearview mirror, and left and right mirrors. Figure 7.1 illustrates the display locations. The words were changed every five seconds, an auditory beep alerted subjects to the change in display. The console display had three distinct conditions: 1, 3, or 5 words. A baseline condition with no distraction task completed the experimental design.
Analysis & Results
As indicated by the NASA Task Load Index measure of task difficulty (NASA-TLX), driving while performing a secondary task was more difficult than baseline (condition 1) (Figure 7.2). The distraction conditions with forward and high-mount cluster displays were rated as equally difficult. The remaining displays were rated as equally difficult to one another, but were rated as more difficult than the high-mount cluster display showing that subjects experienced display eccentricity effect when reporting on task difficulty. Finally, the console display (5-words) (condition 12) was rated as the most difficult. To sum up, it was more difficult to complete the primary task of driving if the secondary task required that the visual attention be shifted further away from the focus of expansion and if it required more or longer look-away (1-word< 3-words < 5-words).
Given that the eyes-off-road proportion measure can be calculated using any time window, a large number of time windows ranging from one to thirty seconds were computed. All generated similar results and a computationally efficient time window of 4.3 seconds was implemented for all analyses. As Figure 7.2 shows there was a clear effect of display location on the eyes-off-road proportion. The non-forward displays (8, 9 & 11) generated greater eyes-off-road proportion than forward displays (2-7). This difference between forward and non-forward displays illustrates the effect of display eccentricity. Increasing the number of words displayed on the console (10-12) also yielded greater eyes-off-road proportion. Distraction presented in the mirror locations and console generated eyes-off-road proportion of 0.5, whereas the console presentation of 5 words (12) generated a proportion of 0.62 and was rated as most difficult. These findings suggest that a threshold of 0.5 be used for determining that visual distraction is occurring. Furthermore, these results show that this measure does relate to visual distraction in a manner that can be quantified.
As Figure 7.3 illustrates, the pattern of results found for standard deviation of lane position (SDLP) was similar to the one described for eyes-off-road proportion. The non-forward displays (8, 9 & 11) generated greater SDLP than forward displays (2-7). This shared pattern by the two measures suggests that they are associated to one another. The high correlation coefficient (r = .843) supports this conclusion. As the eyes-off-road proportion increased so did SDLP.
Figure 7.3. Eyes-off-road Proportion and SDLP as a function of Distraction
The results for Accelerator Release Reaction Time (ART) were not as clear. There was a strong correlation between eyes-off-road proportion and ART (r = .869) if the data for forward displays (2-6) are removed from the analysis. The reason for this finding may have to do with the manner by which the distraction task was presented in the forward displays. Otherwise, as the eyes-off-road proportion increased so did ART.
To summarize, the results indicate that the measure of Visual Distraction (eyes-off-road proportion) does correspond to driving performance associated with distracted driving (e.g., lane departure). A key goal of this research was to show that this finding applies to most subjects. The within-subject analysis yielded correlation between eyes-off-road proportion and SDLP (r = .857) and 11 of 12 subjects had relatively high correlation coefficients (r > .5). This finding indicates that eyes-off-road proportion is a reasonable diagnostic of visual distraction for most individuals.
Another key goal of this research was to investigate alternative diagnostic measures. Two such measures did emerge: Eye gaze gamma is based on the instantaneous eyes-off-road glance duration at the moment of lead vehicle braking and proportion of head-off-road glance time which is a corollary measure related to eyes-off-road proportion and is the ratio of total head-off-road glance time over a time window. Both these measures yielded strong correlation with SDLP (regg =.922 and rhorp = .841) and reliable within-subjects correlations (11 of 12 and 7 of 12 subjects had r > .5). Head-based measures are advantageous as they are easier to measure with automotive-grade eye tracking equipment.
Conclusions
Reliable measures of visual distraction can be linked to distracted-driving and can be used to inform safety countermeasure sub-systems. A short time window (4.3 seconds) was used and it yielded timely and reliable information as to the state of the driver. However, other time windows could be implemented. Although the eye-based measures have slightly higher correlations with the performance measures than the head-based measures, the sensors that are required to sense head pose are more robust and more affordable than the sensors required to measure eye gaze. Furthermore, the more severe distractions, that last for a longer duration or are directed further away from forward, are more likely to involve a head pose component. Given some of the limitations associated with eye-based measures (e.g., eyes sometimes occluded by eyewear), optimizing a head-based measure should become a goal.
7.1. PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Driver distraction is a major contributing factor to automobile crashes. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has estimated that approximately 25% of crashes are attributed to driver distraction and inattention (Wang, Knipling, & Goodman, 1996). The issue of driver distraction may become worse in the next few years because more electronic devices (e.g., cell phones, navigation systems, wireless Internet and email devices) are brought into vehicles that can potentially create more distraction. In response to this situation, the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (VNTSC), in support of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Research, awarded a contract to Delphi Electronics & Safety to develop, demonstrate, and evaluate the potential safety benefits of adaptive interface technologies that manage the information from various in-vehicle systems based on real-time monitoring of the roadway conditions and the driver's capabilities. The contract, known as SAfety VEhicle(s) using adaptive Interface Technology (SAVE-IT), is designed to mitigate distraction with effective countermeasures and enhance the effectiveness of safety warning systems.
The SAVE-IT program serves several important objectives. Perhaps the most important objective is demonstrating a viable proof of concept that is capable of reducing distraction-related crashes and enhancing the effectiveness of safety warning systems. Program success is dependent on integrated closed-loop principles that, not only include sophisticated telematics, mobile office, entertainment and safety warning systems, but also incorporate the state of the driver. This revolutionary closed-loop vehicle environment will be achieved by measuring the driver’s state, assessing the situational threat, prioritizing information presentation, providing adaptive countermeasures to minimize distraction, and optimizing advanced collision warning.
7.2. Introduction
In Phase I research of the SAVE-IT program, two simulator experiments have been performed to determine the effects of visual distraction on reaction times and driving performance (Zhang & Smith, 2004a, 2004b; Zhang, Smith, & Witt, 2006). Several real-time eye glance measures have been discovered to correlate highly with accelerator release reaction time and standard deviation of lane position. Two potential measures include eye gaze variability and eye gaze vector that are calculated over a time window (e.g., 5 seconds). Eye gaze variability is the product of the standard deviations of gaze yaw angle and pitch angle multiplied by 4. It is used in Recarte and Nunes (2000). Eye gaze vector reflects the distance of eye gaze from the focus of expansion and is the square root of the sum of squared gaze yaw angle and pitch angle. These two measures have been shown to correlate strongly with accelerator release reaction time and SDLP using a large window (e.g., 30 or 60 seconds) or a small window (e.g., 1 second). These measures require precise measurements of eye gaze. Because precise measurements of eye gaze are not readily available in automotive-grade eye tracking systems such as Delphi's Driver State Monitor (Edenborough, Hammoud, Harbach, Ingold, Kisačanin, Malawey, Newman, Scharenbroch, Skiver, Smith, Wilhelm, Witt, Yoder, & Zhang, 2004), eye gaze variability and eye gaze vector will not be implemented and evaluated in Task 14 of the SAVE-IT program.
Another diagnostic measure of visual distraction is the proportion of eyes-off-road glance time that is calculated over a time window (e.g., 5 seconds). High correlations have been reliably acquired between eyes-off-road proportion and accelerator release reaction time or SDLP using either a small time window (e.g., 1 second) or a large time window (e.g., 30 or 60 seconds). The eyes-off-road proportion requires a binary classification of eye gaze into forward or non-forward area (e.g., beyond a 24x24-deg square around the focus of expansion), which is achievable using automatic eye tracking systems such as Seeing Machines' Facelab eye tracking system ( Heinzmann & Zelinsky, 1998; Victor, Blomberg & Zelinsky, 2001) and Delphi's Driver State Monitor (Edenborough, Hammoud et al., 2004). Because it does not require precise measurements of eye gaze and has a strong correlation with driving performance, eyes-off-road proportion has been recommended as a real-time diagnostic of visual distraction that will be implemented and evaluated in Task 14.
In Phase I (Zhang & Smith, 2004b), the strong correlations for eyes-off-road proportion were obtained after averaging across subjects. Across-subjects averaging is necessary to achieve data reliability because each subject experienced only two or three non-imminent lead vehicle braking events per condition. Reaction times can vary randomly within a particular distribution and averaging across a number of reaction time values is a typical method employed in human factors to acquire reliable results. In real-time implementations, though, eyes-off-road proportion will be computed using eye gaze information from one single driver rather than from across-subjects averages. To bridge the gap, a new simulator experiment is performed to produce a larger number of lead vehicle braking events per subject. The new experiment consists of two 3-hr sessions and generates as many as sixteen lead vehicle braking events per subject per condition. Reaction times can be averaged across these sixteen braking events to obtain reliable results.
More research is also needed to determine threshold values for eyes-off-road proportion. When visual distraction thresholds are exceeded, distraction feedback can be provided to drivers to re-direct their attention back to the forward road (Donmez,
Boyle, Lee, & McGehee, 2004a, 2004b). Because this experiment produces a large number of lead vehicle braking events, the relationship between eyes-off-road proportion and reaction time will be investigated more fully to determine the thresholds.
The use of a large number of reaction time events also provides opportunities to explore other diagnostic measures. Donmez, Boyle, Lee, and Scott (2005) have shown that eye gaze gamma, which is defined as (weight)X(instantaneous eye gaze duration)+(1-weight)X(total eyes-off-road glance duration) within a time window (e.g., 5-s), is a promising measure of visual distraction. In this experiment, the effect of eye gaze gamma on accelerator release reaction time and SDLP will be investigated.
Although Phase I (Zhang & Smith, 2004b) showed a display eccentricity effect, some common vehicle locations (e.g., left mirror or rearview mirror) were not investigated. In this experiment, several new values of display eccentricity are added. Subjects are asked to read aloud words that are presented at locations such as the left mirror, rearview mirror, high-mounted head-down display, and center console monitor. Words are also presented in the forward road area to simulate distractions such as reading license plates of forward vehicles and street signs. Five forward locations include: the focus of expansion, the left side of the forward screen, the right side of the forward screen, the top of the forward screen, and the bottom of the forward screen (near the typical location of a head-up display). All these locations are within a 24x24-deg square and eye gaze to these locations is therefore classified as forward. Using these display locations, driving performance and reaction time will be assessed for both small and large display eccentricities.
7.2. Method
7.2.1. Subjects
Twelve subjects (seven males and five females) were recruited from the salaried employee pool at Delphi Electronics and Safety at Kokomo, Indiana. They were required to be in the range of 35-55 years old and possess a valid driver's license. One subject wore thin eyeglasses, two subjects wore contact lenses, and nine subjects did not wear eyeglasses or contact lenses. Subjects had a minimum vision of 20/40 (vision correction with eyeglasses permitted) as tested with the Snellen Eye Chart. The actual age for the twelve subjects ranged between 35-53, averaged 45, and had a standard deviation of 7. They were paid a $100 Wal-Mart gift card for their participation in the 6-h experiment.
7.2.2. Design
7.2.2.1. Delphi Driving Simulator and Display Monitors
The experiment was performed in the Delphi Driving Simulator at Kokomo, Indiana. It was a fixed-base, one forward channel DriveSafety system ( The simulator projected a 1024x768-pixel 50x40-deg forward field-of-view image located at the front bumper of the vehicle cab. The vehicle handling system was configured to represent a mid-size front wheel drive sedan, such as a Ford Taurus. Steering feedback was presented with a force-feedback torque motor, to reproduce the feel of the road at the steering wheel, as well as the forces on the front tires during evasive maneuvers. The vehicle cab consisted of the front half of a 1995 Pontiac Bonneville exterior (with doors and roof removed), with a 1996 Buick Park Avenue instrument cluster and dashboard.