UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

10/12/2007
Date:___________________

Gregory J. Funke
I, _________________________________________________________,
hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of:
Doctor of Philosophy
in:
Psychology
It is entitled:
The Effects of Automation and Workload on Driver Performance,
Subjective Workload, and Mood

This work and its defense approved by:

Gerald Matthews
Chair: _______________________________
Joel S. Warm
_______________________________
Michael Riley
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
 THE EFFECTS OF AUTOMATION AND WORKLOAD ON DRIVER PERFORMANCE,

SUBJECTIVE WORKLOAD, AND MOOD

A dissertation submitted to the

Division of Research and Advanced Studies

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

in the Department of Psychology

of the College of Arts and Sciences

2007

by

Gregory J. Funke

M.A., University of Cincinnati, 2003

Committee Chair:
Gerald Matthews, Ph.D.
 ABSTRACT

The effects of vehicle automation, drive difficulty, workload transitions, and subjective state on drivers’

performance efficiency and mood were assessed. This combination of driving variables is likely to play a

key role in automotive safety in the future as in-vehicle technologies increase. Two levels of drive

difficulty (straight, curved) were combined factorially with three levels of vehicle-automation (manual,

continuous-automation, intermittent-automation) to produce six experimental conditions (N = 20 per

condition). In the straight roadway condition, road curvature was absent from the drive. The road in the

curved condition was a continuous set of ‘s-curves,’ which required participants to make constant steering

inputs. Participants in the continuous-automation condition drove in a simulated automated vehicle,

which controlled drivers’ lateral position and longitudinal speed. Participants in the intermittent-

automation condition drove in a mix of manual and automated vehicle control, which required frequent

control transitions. Participants in the manual condition completed the drive without automated vehicle

control. Performance during the experiment was assessed on several indices, including a monitoring task

which required participants to detect pedestrian hazards. Participants completed the Driver Stress

Inventory (DSI; Matthews, Desmond, Joyner, & Carcary, 1997) a measure of stress vulnerability in a

driving context, the Dundee Stress State Questionnaire (DSSQ, Matthews, et al.., 1999; 2002), a measure

of subjective mood state, and the NASA-Task Load Index (TLX; Hart & Staveland, 1988), a measure of

the perceived mental workload associated with a task. Results of the experiment indicated that curved

roadways impaired driver performance, but did not influence workload. Automation facilitated

performance, but the effect was transient and only observed in the continuous-automation condition.

Automation did not reduce driver workload; perceived workload was actually elevated in the intermittent-

automation condition. Workload transition effects were found to relate to impaired lateral vehicle control,

and increased driver errors. Several DSI factors and DSSQ task engagement were found to be predictive

of post-task subjective state and several indices of task performance. Overall, results indicated that

vehicle automation may facilitate driver performance, but transitions between manual and automated

vehicle control may pose substantial safety risks. Human factors implications and solutions are discussed.
 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS _______________________________________________________ i

LIST OF TABLES ___________________________________________________________ iii

LIST OF FIGURES __________________________________________________________ iv

CHAPTER 1: Introduction _____________________________________________________ 1

Vehicle automation _____________________________________________________________ 1
Proposed vehicle automation systems ________________________________________ 1
Automation defined ______________________________________________________ 3
Benefits and costs of automation ____________________________________________ 4
Effects of vehicle automation on driver workload _____________________________________ 7
Influence of driving environment ___________________________________________ 8
Influence of driver skill ___________________________________________________ 8
Workload transition effects_______________________________________________________ 9
Theories of workload transition effects ____________________________________________ 11
Resource theory ________________________________________________________ 11
Effort-regulation _______________________________________________________ 12
Individual differences in driver behavior ___________________________________________ 14
Driver stress vulnerability ________________________________________________ 14
State response to stress___________________________________________________ 15
Study objectives and specific hypotheses ___________________________________________ 16
General goals __________________________________________________________ 16
Driver performance and workload __________________________________________ 16
Subjective state ________________________________________________________ 17

CHAPTER 2: Method ________________________________________________________ 18

Participants __________________________________________________________________ 18
Experimental design ___________________________________________________________ 18
Questionnaires________________________________________________________________ 19
Driver stress inventory___________________________________________________ 19
Dundee stress state questionnaire __________________________________________ 19
NASA-task load index ___________________________________________________ 20
Driving simulator _____________________________________________________________ 20
Driving tasks _________________________________________________________________ 20
Practice drive __________________________________________________________ 20
Experimental drive______________________________________________________ 23
General Procedure_____________________________________________________________ 25

CHAPTER 3: Results _________________________________________________________ 27

Driver performance ____________________________________________________________ 27
Mean lateral position ____________________________________________________ 28
Mean SD of lateral position _______________________________________________ 28
Mean longitudinal speed _________________________________________________ 28
Mean SD of longitudinal speed ____________________________________________ 29
Mean steering wheel rate _________________________________________________ 30
Mean SD of steering wheel rate____________________________________________ 31
Hazard monitoring task_________________________________________________________ 31
Percentage correct detections______________________________________________ 31
 ii

Reaction time __________________________________________________________ 33

Transitions between manual and automated vehicle control ____________________________ 35
Continuous-automation __________________________________________________ 37
Mean SD of lateral position ________________________________________ 37
Mean SD of longitudinal speed______________________________________ 37
Mean SD of steering wheel rate _____________________________________ 38
Lane deviations __________________________________________________ 39
Major violations _________________________________________________ 40
Intermittent-automation __________________________________________________ 40
Mean SD of lateral position ________________________________________ 41
Mean SD of longitudinal speed______________________________________ 42
Mean SD of steering wheel rate _____________________________________ 43
Lane deviations __________________________________________________ 44
Major violations _________________________________________________ 46
Driver mood and workload ______________________________________________________ 46
Lane deviation _________________________________________________________ 46
Driver workload ________________________________________________________ 48
Predictors of post-task state _____________________________________________________ 49
Predictors of driver performance _________________________________________________ 51

CHAPTER 4: Discussion ______________________________________________________ 55

Vehicle automation effects ______________________________________________________ 57
Driver performance _____________________________________________________ 57
Driver workload ________________________________________________________ 58
Drive difficulty _______________________________________________________________ 59
Driver performance _____________________________________________________ 59
Driver workload ________________________________________________________ 60
Workload transition effects______________________________________________________ 61
Driver performance _____________________________________________________ 61
Driver workload ________________________________________________________ 63
Individual differences __________________________________________________________ 63
Conclusions and human factors implications ________________________________________ 65

REFERENCES ______________________________________________________________ 68

APPENDIX A: Drive instructions _______________________________________________ 76

APPENDIX B: Simulator road description _______________________________________ 79

APPENDIX C: ANOVA tables _________________________________________________ 83

APPENDIX D: Regression tables ______________________________________________ 100

APPENDIX E: Psychometric instruments _______________________________________ 108

Driver Stress Inventory (DSI) ____________________________________________ 109
Pre-task Dundee Stress State Questionnaire (DSSQ) __________________________ 114
Post-task Dundee Stress State Questionnaire (DSSQ)__________________________ 118
NASA-Task Load Index (TLX)___________________________________________ 123
 iii

LIST OF TABLES

1. Summary of vehicle control for each vehicle-automation condition in each period ____ 34

2. Mean pre-test and post-test standard scores for DSSQ worry, distress, and

engagement as a function of roadway and vehicle-automation conditions ___________ 47

3. Correlations between DSSQ pre- and post-task scores and DSI factors _____________ 50

4. Summary statistics for regressions of post-task DSSQ state factors onto pre-task

DSSQ state factors, roadway and vehicle-automation conditions, roadway ×

vehicle-automation interaction, and DSI factors _______________________________ 47

5. Summary statistics for regressions of performance variables onto roadway and

vehicle-automation conditions, roadway × vehicle-automation interaction, post-

task DSSQ state factors, and DSI factors_____________________________________ 49

 iv

LIST OF FIGURES

1. A scene from the straight roadway condition of the experimental drive _____________ 23

2. A scene from the curved roadway condition of the experimental drive _____________ 24

3. Mean SD of lateral position as a function of roadway condition and period__________ 28

4. Mean longitudinal speed as a function of roadway condition and period ____________ 29

5. Mean SD of longitudinal speed as a function of roadway condition and period _______ 30

6. Mean steering wheel rate as a function of roadway condition and period____________ 30

7. Mean SD of steering wheel rate as a function of roadway condition and period ______ 31

8. Mean percentage of correct pedestrian detections as a function of roadway

condition and period ____________________________________________________ 32

9. Mean percentage of correct pedestrian detections as a function of vehicle-

automation condition and period ___________________________________________ 33

10. Mean reaction time in the curved roadway condition as a function of vehicle-

automation condition and period ___________________________________________ 35

11. Mean SD of longitudinal speed as a function of vehicle-automation condition and

transition segment ______________________________________________________ 38

12. Mean SD of steering wheel rate as a function of transition segment and vehicle-

automation condition ____________________________________________________ 39

13. Mean SD of lateral position in the curved roadway condition as a function of

transition segment and vehicle-automation condition ___________________________ 42

14. Mean SD of longitudinal speed as a function of vehicle-automation condition and

transition segment ______________________________________________________ 43

15. Mean SD of steering wheel rate as a function of vehicle-automation condition

and transition segment ___________________________________________________ 44

16. Mean workload ratings for each TLX subscale ________________________________ 49

 1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Vehicle Automation

In-vehicle technologies are becoming increasingly complex as new devices and systems are

added to modern automobiles (Ashley, 2001). In 2001, Walker, Stanton, and Young reported that several

major automobile manufacturers planned on incorporating systems designed to monitor headway error,

track and avoid collisions, and adaptively maintain a set cruise speed into their production vehicles by

2015. However, recently revealed specifications concerning these same manufacturers’ 2008 models

indicated that, though these features are costly, each of the technological goals described by Walker et al.

(2001) have been realized, and are now commercially available. For example, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota,

and General Motors now offer vehicles equipped with adaptive cruise control (ACC; Kranz, 2006). ACC

units utilize a headway monitoring system to detect slower moving vehicles within the driver’s lane, and

dynamically modify vehicle speed to establish safe following distances and matching speeds (Kranz,

2006). Similarly, several major automobile manufacturers now offer vehicle models featuring integrated

lane departure warning systems (LDWS; Kranz, 2006). These systems differ slightly from each other, but

all utilize some sort of monitoring technology that activates a warning (auditory, visual, vibro-tactile, or a

combination thereof) if drivers begin to exit their lane without signaling (Houser, Pierowicz, &

Fuglewicz, 2005).

Proposed vehicle automation systems. As commercially available automation technologies

mature in sophistication, some researchers estimate that the next step will be to incorporate fully

automated vehicle control, meaning that all driving tasks would be relegated to a machine system

(Walker, Stanton, & Young, 2001), though the final form this automation may take is still being debated.

One possibility is that of an intelligent vehicle highway system (IVHS; Hancock & Parasuraman, 1992;

Owens, Helmers, & Sivak, 1993). Proposed IVHS systems aim to automate most aspects of normal

vehicle operation, including collision avoidance and navigation, while a driver is traveling on specially
 2

designed or retrofitted roadways. However, IVHS systems will require large capital investments to

establish the infrastructure necessary for their successful operation (e.g., sensors to download and upload

navigation information to each vehicle on the roadway, etc.), and the resultant systems may also require

‘road-traffic controllers,’ similar to air-traffic controllers, to monitor and direct the resulting automated

traffic patterns.

Other proposed systems would automate vehicles more globally (Walker et al., 2001). For

example, it may be possible to achieve automated vehicle control by combining the functionality of a

headway monitor, a LDWS, and a navigation system. These integrated commercial automation systems

could be offered as an optional ‘automated driving’ package to new vehicle purchasers, thereby placing

the economic burden associated with the automation on the interested consumer. Such automated systems

could be activated (a) at the operator’s command; (b) when the operator’s driving performance fell below

some threshold value previously determined by the technology manufacturer (Matthews, 2001); or (c) at

all times, regardless of the situation or driver preference (Walker et al., 2001).

Of the two proposed systems described above, Congressional legislation has provided limited

support for each. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (H.R. 2950, 1991)

established the Automated Highway System (AHS) program and provided $660 million for projects from

fiscal years 1992-1997. The goal of the AHS program was to "develop an automated highway and vehicle

prototype from which future fully automated intelligent vehicle-highway systems [could] be developed"

(H.R. 2950, 1991). However, more recent legislatorial overtures favor consumer-based automation over

larger, publicly funded projects. For example, H.R. 4931 (2004) was designed to “encourage and

accelerate the nationwide production, retail sale, and consumer use of new commercial and consumer

motor vehicles with intelligent vehicle technology systems.” Though H.R. 4931 was not passed by the

108th Congress (it expired after the midterm elections of 2006), it would have made a tax credit available

to purchasers of “qualified intelligent systems property,” examples of which included navigation systems,

lane departure warnings, automatic crash notification systems, and other similar devices (H.R. 4931,

2004).
 3

Automation defined. Given the rapid innovation and development of commercially available in-

vehicle technologies coupled with tacit legislative support, it has become increasingly important to

understand the nature and consequences of vehicle automation for driver performance. Parasuraman and

Riley (1997) have operationally defined automation as “the execution by a machine agent (usually a

computer) of a function that was previously carried out by a human.” According to this definition, what

constitutes automation and what constitutes machine operation will change over time. Tasks that are

completely and permanently allocated to a machine are classified as machine operations, while tasks that

can be accomplished by a human or machine agent are classified as automated. An example of a new

vehicle technology that qualifies as automation under Parasuraman and Riley’s (1997) definition is the

automated parallel parking system of the 2007 Lexus LS460.

The LS460 can be purchased with an optional ‘advanced parking guidance system’ (APGS), an

automated system that allows the vehicle to parallel park itself, with some assistance from the driver. To

operate the system, the driver must first pull up in front of an open parking space, as they would if they

were going to parallel park manually, and put the car in reverse. Next, the driver activates the automated

system. A series of sensors mounted on the front and rear bumpers of the vehicle estimate the size of the

parking space. From this information, a likely desired parking location is derived. A touch-screen located

in the dashboard displays the current road scene (captured by a rear-mounted camera) and the estimated

parking location to the driver. The driver may then manually adjust the final parking location using a

series of icons located on the touch-screen. Once the final location is established to the driver’s

satisfaction, the vehicle will automatically steer itself into that location, though the driver is still required

to operate the brake to modulate vehicle speed.

The APGS has been reported to work quite well (Vanderwerp, 2006; Wiesenfelder, 2006), though

it is not perfect. Reported problems include (a) the system does not currently feature an alert to drivers if

the desired parking location is too small to accommodate the vehicle (Vanderwerp, 2006), (b) the

automated system may back into or clip other parked vehicles while executing the parallel parking

maneuver (Vanderwerp, 2006; Wiesenfelder, 2006), and (c) establishing the final parking location using
 4

the touch-screen system may take 30 seconds or more to accomplish (Vanderwerp, 2006; Wiesenfelder,

2006). However, since this is the first system of its kind, it is likely that future models will address these

technical difficulties.

Benefits and costs of automation. The overriding impetus for the addition of automated

technologies to vehicles seems to be a desire to decrease driver workload and improve driver safety

(Stanton & Marsden, 1996; Walker et al., 2001). Automobile manufacturers are attempting to achieve this

goal chiefly by augmenting drivers’ perceptual capabilities (e.g. preventative collision detection by

headway monitors) or by automating aspects of driving (e.g. automated route-finding using a GPS

system). To some extent, driving may be characterized as requiring dual-task performance as drivers must

maintain lateral and longitudinal vehicle control (a complex tracking task) while scanning the roadway for

potential hazards (a complex vigilance task; Young & Stanton, 2007). Automating aspects of vehicle

control may therefore ease driver workload by reducing the number of concurrent tasks the driver must

perform. Though it may be difficult to argue for a direct causal link between driver workload and

increased accident risk, a substantial body of research supports a relationship between mental workload

and poor driver performance (e.g., Kantowitz & Simsek, 2001), which may, in turn, be related to

increased risk. Therefore, the goal of incorporating automated systems into automobiles would appear to

be a worthwhile one.

According to Wickens and Hollands (2000), the reasons for automating a task may encompass

four broad categories. Tasks may be automated because 1) people cannot perform the task because of

inherent limitations, 2) people may perform the task, but performance is poor or involves high workload,

3) automation augments or assists human performance, or 4) it is economically preferable for a machine

to perform the function. However, whether or not a task is automated is often determined by technological

and economic feasibility, rather than by careful analysis of the consequences (Parasuraman & Riley,

1997). This approach tends to define operators’ roles in terms of the automation, often relegating them to

positions of supervising and monitoring the automated system (Parasuraman & Riley, 1997), a change

which may engender unintended consequences.

 5

First, automation may not actually reduce operator workload, but instead transfer it to new tasks,

such as gathering information about the state of the automated system and monitoring it for errors

(Parasuraman, Mouloua, Molloy, & Hilburn, 1996; Reinartz & Gruppe, 1993; Stanton & Marsden, 1996;

Stanton & Young, 2000). Additionally, deliberations over when to employ an automated system may

impose cognitive workload over and above that already required by a task (Parasuraman & Riley, 1997).

Research on automation in aviation indicates that it has worked relatively well for aspects of aviation

where pilot workload demands were already quite low, such as routine in-flight operations, leading to

increased crew boredom (Stanton & Marsden, 1996), and perhaps more seriously, mental underload (e.g.,

Hancock & Parasuraman, 1992; Young & Stanton, 2002a, 2007). However, research with pilots also

reveals that many of them feel that aviation automation has actually increased their workload, particularly

during high-workload phases of flight (i.e., during descent and final approach; Wiener, 1985, 1989). The

negative impact of such an increase in workload may be most apparent in time-critical situations, such as

an emergency malfunction of the automated system (Young & Stanton, 2002a, 2007).

A second problem associated with automation is inappropriate operator trust in the system.

Previous research on operator trust has indicated that reliable automation engenders trust (Lee & Moray,

1992) and that monitoring may be inversely related to system reliability (May, Molloy, & Parasuraman,

1993). As a system becomes more reliable, operators tend to become complacent, spending less time and

effort monitoring the automated system for errors. The net result is that operators may become lax in their

supervisory or monitoring role, resulting in a failure to detect automation malfunctions.

Conversely, automation that is less than perfectly reliable may cause operators to overly distrust

the automated system, leading them to disuse or neglect such systems even under circumstances that

clearly favor automated task performance (Parasuraman & Riley, 1997; Stanton & Marsden, 1996; Young

& Stanton, 2007). In addition, operators’ perceptions of the types of errors made by an automated system

may also negatively impact trust. Conspicuous automation errors (Dzindolet, Peterson, Pomranky, Pierce,

& Beck, 2003) and errors that are diagnosed as ‘simple’ or easily avoided under manual control by human

operators (Madhavan, Wiegmann, & Lacson, 2006) may result in under-reliance on the automation as an
 6

aid, and inflate operators’ confidence in their skills and abilities to successfully complete a task manually

(Madhavan et al., 2006). However, some research indicates that operators may be relatively insensitive to

differences in automation reliability (Dzindolet, Pierce, Beck, Dawe, & Anderson, 2001), suggesting that

operators may be more prone to over-trust than under-trust.

Problems of over-trust and over-reliance on automation may be further compounded by

operators’ potential loss of situational awareness (SA; Endsley, 1995; Stanton & Young, 2000; Wickens

& Hollands, 2000). SA refers to operators’ mental representations of a task, and it encompasses factors

that are both internal and external to the task (Endsley, 1995). In the driving context, internal factors

include the state of the automated system, the route selected by the driver, whether or not the driver is

fatigued or stressed, etc. External factors include local traffic patterns, geographical location, current road

conditions, etc. Research indicates that unreliable automation may impair driver SA (Ma & Kaber, 2007).

A driver who trusts an automated system may perceive little need to monitor the system, and thereby lose

situational awareness of the driving context. Even drivers who do detect an automation error may not be

prepared to deal with the problem appropriately. Loss of situational awareness may impair the drivers’

judgments about the driving situation, leading them to make critical errors.

A final concern is the tendency for human operators’ skills and knowledge concerning manual

task performance to degrade with disuse (Parasuraman, 2000; Stanton & Marsden, 1996; Young &

Stanton, 2007). For example, Stanton and Marsden (1996) reported that poor initial training coupled with

operator skill degradation due to disuse have been linked to several aviation incidents. At issue is that

highly reliable, continuous task execution by an automated system may reduce opportunities for manual

control through automatic task execution (perhaps without operator consent or knowledge), and because

highly reliable systems may subtly encourage operators to bypass opportunities to practice manual

execution on the assumption that the system will not malfunction.

 7

Effects of Vehicle Automation on Driver Workload

Within the past decade, substantive efforts have been made by researchers to understand the

effects of vehicle automation on driver performance and perceived mental workload. Mental workload

has been previously proposed as an inferred construct that mediates between task difficulty, operator skill,

and observed task performance (Moray, 1979). The net result of this research indicates that the utility of

automation may be dependent on the ‘type’ of automation employed. Several authors (e.g., Lee, 2006;

Sheridan, 1997) have differentiated various ‘levels’ of automation, depending on the extent to which the

machine controls system operations, and the degree to which initiation and cessation of automation is

under machine or human control. There have also been efforts to categorize ‘types’ of automation (e.g.,

Parasuraman, Sheridan, & Wickens, 2000). In vehicle driving, functions that may be amenable to

automation include those related to acquiring and analyzing information (e.g., headway monitoring and

collision warning devices) and those that control vehicle trajectory (e.g., adaptive cruise control,

automated parking). Higher-level automation of vehicle operations, such that aspects of vehicle control

are transferred from the driver to the machine, as is envisioned for IHVS and future commercial

automation endeavors, appears to offer the greatest potential for benefits of workload reduction, but also

may entail the negative aspects of automation previously outlined.

Empirical research concerning the relation of automated vehicle trajectory to driver workload has

produced conflicting results. For example, several studies have found that automated control of vehicle

speed may reduce driver workload (e.g., Stanton & Young, 2005; Stanton, Young, & McCaulder, 1997;

Young & Stanton, 2004); others have not (e.g., Funke, Matthews, Warm, & Emo, 2007; Nilsson, 1995;

Stanton, Young, Walker, Turner, & Randle, 2001). Similarly, some studies have found that automated

control of lateral position and longitudinal speed may reduce workload (e.g., Stanton et al., 2001; Young

& Stanton, 2002b; Young & Stanton, 2004); others have found it to have no effect (e.g., Desmond,

Hancock, & Monette, 1998).

 8

Recent research by Young and Stanton (2004, 2007) may help to explicate these seemingly

contradictory findings. They suggest that two factors, driving environment and driver skill, may moderate

the effects of vehicle automation on driver workload.

Influence of driving environment. The first factor, driving environment, refers to external sources

of increased task demands encountered while driving, such as weather, traffic patterns, and road

geometry. Road geometry refers to physical aspects of the roadway (i.e., radius of curvature, lane width,

shoulder width, etc.; Neuman, 1992). Research indicates that driving environment may substantively

influence driver workload, with more difficult environmental circumstances resulting in increased driver

workload and impaired driver performance (see Kantowitz & Simsek, 2001, for a partial review of the

literature). Young and Stanton (2004) argue that the workload reduction benefits from automating lateral

and longitudinal vehicle control may be contingent upon the specific roadway conditions encountered,

with greater benefits accrued under more demanding circumstances. Therefore, automated vehicle

controls, lateral or longitudinal, may not significantly reduce driver workload in comparison to manual

driving on roads (real or simulated) that feature simple or undemanding roadway conditions. On the other

hand, automated vehicle controls may be expected to reduce driver workload in more demanding driving

environments (e.g., ‘stop and go’ traffic, narrow lanes, tight turns, etc.). Subsequent empirical research

tends to support these suppositions (Young & Stanton, 2004, 2005).

Influence of driver skill. The second factor, driver skill, is related to drivers’ proficiencies at

driving tasks, and to the development of automaticity (e.g., Anderson, 1995; Matthews, Davies,

Westerman, & Stammers, 2000). Theories of skill development often focus on performance differences

associated with novice and expert task performance (e.g., Anderson, 1995; Fitts, 1962). One frequently

cited difference is that novice performance is cognitively demanding, entailing substantial workload and

effort, relative to expert performance. Conversely, expert performance is posited to be comparatively

undemanding, with little associated effort or workload (Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977; Shiffrin & Schneider,

1977). Young and Stanton (2007) suggest that, as drivers’ skills approach automaticity, drivers will

experience reduced task workload associated with normal vehicle operations, and consequently,
 9

automated vehicle control will produce fewer workload reduction benefits. However, automation may still

be expected to reduce workload for expert drivers under novel or extremely demanding circumstances

(Young & Stanton, 2007). Additionally, Young and Stanton (2007) acknowledge that some components

of driving, such as hazard monitoring, may be too variable for automaticity to develop, and so these

elements continue to require conscious, effortful control (e.g., Harms, 1991; Groeger & Clegg, 1997).

Therefore, in relatively undemanding driving environments, vehicle automation may not

substantially influence driver workload or performance, except perhaps for the most inexperienced of

drivers. However, under difficult and demanding roadway conditions, automation may be expected to

reduce driver workload and potentially improve performance on aspects of driving unrelated to vehicle

control, such as hazard monitoring, though more experienced drivers may receive fewer benefits.

Workload Transition Effects

As mentioned previously, a general concern within the automation literature is that automation

may negatively impact human operators’ skills and knowledge concerning manual task performance due

to disuse. However, the prospect of skill degradation is perhaps less likely given that the two automated

vehicle control schemes outlined previously (IVHS and commercial automation) require a mixture of

manual and automated vehicle control. Somewhat ironically, the required combination of controls may

entail a different set of negative consequences for drivers due to workload transition effects, the

potentiality of which has not yet been widely acknowledged within the driving literature. Workload

transition effects may occur when operators experience abrupt shifts between high and low task demands,

or vice versa, and must subsequently adapt to those changes. Within the ‘real-world,’ unexpected and

rapid shifts in task demands may be relatively common. For example, morning commuters can experience

relatively normal driving punctuated by periods of increased demand around highway entrance or exit

ramps, traffic snarls, and traffic accidents. Due to their prospectively ubiquitous nature, the National

Research Council Committee on Human Factors has identified transitions in task demand as an essential

component in understanding operator performance (Huey & Wickens, 1993).

 10

Research concerning the effects of workload transitions typically has found that abrupt decreases

in task demands may impair subsequent task performance (e.g., Cox-Fuenzalida, Beeler, & Sohl, 2006;

Gluckman, Warm, Dember, & Rosa, 1993; Matthews & Desmond, 2002; Ungar et al., 2005); similarly,

abrupt increases in task demands may also impair task performance (e.g., Cox-Fuenzalida, 2007; Cox-

Fuenzalida, Beeler, & Sohl, 2006; Hart & Bartolussi, 1984). However, within the research literature a few

exceptions to these trends have been noted. For example, Helton et al. (2004) found that on a vigilance

task, participants who were switched from a high signal salience to a low signal salience, and vice versa,

performed as well post-transition as non-shifted control participants. In addition, Parasuraman, Mouloua,

and Molloy (1996) found that participants correctly detected a greater number of automation failures

following a period of manual task execution.

One potential explanation for the observed differences concerning workload transitions may be

the unit of time selected by researchers for comparisons. For example, Gluckman et al. (1993) found that

participants shifted from dual- to single-task monitoring performed more poorly than non-shifted control

participants performing a single monitoring task. However, the observed differences between the two

groups dissipated after shifted participants continued to perform the single task for an additional ten

minutes. Somewhat similarly, Scallen, Hancock, and Duley (1995) found that performance on two

secondary tasks (engine monitoring and fuel management) was significantly disrupted by transitions

between manual and automated control of a tracking task in the 15 seconds immediately following a

transition, but comparisons of longer, five-minute blocks did not show these effects. Together, these

studies indicate that workload transition effects may be relatively brief, and that researchers must be

actively judicious when selecting a unit of time for comparison across experimental groups.

Two explanations have typically been offered for the observed negative effects of workload

transitions on task performance: a resource account and an effort-regulation account.

 11

Theories of Workload Transition Effects

Resource theory. Attentional-resource theories (e.g., Norman & Bobrow, 1975) posit that

information processing and task performance are dependent on the availability of system resources.

Typically these resources are believed to exist in a fixed quantity, though there is some evidence to

suggest that this quantity may vary with task demands and other factors (see Young & Stanton, 2002a;

Young & Stanton, 2002b for reviews). These resources are believed facilitate information processing. It

has been previously suggested that workload represents the proportion of resources required to meet the

demands of a task (e.g., Welford, 1978). According to resource theory, as task demands increase, more

effort is required to perform a task and as a result, more resources are expended in the performance of the

task and workload increases. If the available resources are not sufficient to meet the demands of the

current situation, skilled operators may adjust their strategy to compensate (Singleton, 1989), or barring

this, performance deficits will be evidenced.

From a resource-based account of workload transition effects, poor operator performance

following a decrease in workload may be due to an increased expenditure of resources during high

workload task performance. Post-transition, shifted operators may have fewer resources available to meet

task demands relative to non-shifted operators performing a low workload task, resulting in comparatively

inferior performance. A shift upward or downward in task demands may also consume resources if rapid

changes in task demands require operators to recruit or reallocate resources for task performance (Huey &

Wickens, 1993), a process which may take time and effort to accomplish (Tsang & Wickens, 1988).

Following a transition, operators may have to make substantial alterations (in attention, strategy, task

directed effort, etc.) while continuing task performance. Changes in task performance following a

workload transition may then be due to decrements in available resources, or to temporary resource

shortfalls as operators adapt to new task demands. Performance may subsequently improve as initial

resource deficits are overcome by cognitive compensatory processes (Gluckman et al., 1993), as operators

complete resource reallocation, or some combination thereof.

 12

A resource-based model may also be appropriate for understanding driver performance given the

literature linking task workload and driver performance mentioned previously. For example, Harms

(1986) found that driver workload ratings on 100-meter segments of roadway covaried with the number

of reported traffic accidents on those segments. In addition, Kantowitz and Simsek (2001) report that

performing a secondary task while driving may negatively impact several indices of driver performance,

such as lateral position, headway, and velocity. Similarly, Horrey and Wickens (2004) found that drivers’

lane keeping and speed regulation were negatively affected by a switch from single-task manual driving

to a dual-task driving situation (driving while completing a digit-dialling task). These findings tend to

support a resource-based model in that dual-task interference is often cited as evidence of resource-

limited performance.

From a resource-based perspective, the relationship between vehicle automation and workload

transitions may be somewhat complicated. Shifts between manual and automated vehicle control, and

vice versa, may negatively impact driver performance due to workload transition effects (though the

potential duration of interference has not yet been identified in driving). This disruption may also

potentially influence drivers’ experience of workload, particularly if drivers are cognizant of the

interference and must actively compensate for it. Conversely, vehicle automation, to the extent that it

actually reduces driver workload, may insulate drivers from resource shortfalls, thereby minimizing the

effects of workload transitions. Therefore, resource theory suggests that driver performance should be

best under conditions that minimize workload and exposure to workload transitions (i.e., on straight roads

with vehicle automation and few control transitions) and worst under conditions that impose continuous

levels of high workload (i.e., on curved roads without automation).

Effort-regulation. An effort-regulation account attributes performance impairments to a failure to

match effort to environmental task demands (Hancock & Warm, 1989; Hockey, 1993; Matthews &

Desmond, 2002). Such performance impairment may be due to a lowering of performance standards

(Hockey, 1997), or it may be a consequence of insufficient performance monitoring and lack of

awareness (Matthews & Desmond, 2002).

 13

From an effort-regulation based account of workload transition effects, poor operator

performance may be due to a misperception of task demands. For example, following a sudden change in

weather, drivers may under-estimate the difficulty of subsequent driving conditions, leading them to

apply less effort to the task. However, when perceived workload is high, drivers must mobilize additional

effort to maintain safety and performance, and this additional effort may focus attention on the task and

mitigate the effects of workload transitions. Additionally, performance recovery following workload

transitions may be due to a subsequent revision in assessment of task demands as a result of continued

exposure to post-shift conditions (Ungar et al., 2005). In support of an effort-regulation model of driver

performance, Matthews and Desmond (2002) found that fatigue effects on driving performance were

more pronounced when workload was low (driving a straight road) than when workload was high (driving

curves). Similarly, Matthews (1996) found that stress and worry effects on driver performance were

stronger on straights than on curves.

An additional source of support for an effort-regulation model of workload transitions may be

found in studies of critical vehicle automation failures. These studies typically begin with drivers

experiencing some form of automated vehicle control (lateral, longitudinal, or both). At some

unannounced point within the drive, the automation unexpectedly fails. Following this, drivers must

detect the failure and then act appropriately to bring the vehicle back under control. A frequent finding of

such research is that a substantial proportion of drivers are unsuccessful at this task, resulting in collisions

with other traffic or roadway objects (e.g., de Waard, van der Hulst, Hoedemaeker, & Brookhuis, 1999;

Nilsson, 1995; Stanton et al., 1997, 2001). Over-trust in the automation and complacency may have led

participants in these studies to misperceive workload demands associated with monitoring the automated

system for failures, leaving them under-prepared to detect the error. Subsequently, when the automation

failed, participants may not have applied adequate effort quickly enough to control the vehicle and

prevent a collision.

An effort-regulation account of driver performance suggests that automation and workload

transitions may have an interactive effect on driver performance. To the extent that vehicle automation
 14

encourages drivers to minimize task-directed effort, workload transition effects may be expected to be

exacerbated. In accord with the effort-regulation model, driver performance would be best under

conditions that require continuous task-directed effort (i.e., driving manually on curved roads), and

poorest under conditions that facilitate a misperception of the effort required and which minimize task-

directed effort (i.e., driving under mixed manual and automated vehicle control on straight roads).

Individual Differences in Driver Behavior

Driver stress vulnerability. Research suggests that responses to demanding driving environments

may reflect both external factors and the driver's personality, as it relates to stress vulnerability (e.g.,

Funke et al., 2007; Matthews & Desmond, 2002; see also Matthews, 2001 for a review). Stress may be

seen as an interaction between external stressors and an individual’s cognitive and behavioral responses to

those stressors (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). One measure designed to assess driver stress vulnerability is

the Driver Stress Inventory (DSI; Matthews, Desmond, Joyner, & Carcary, 1997). The DSI is a measure

of subjective emotional reactions to driving and behavior in demanding driving conditions, which has

been validated in experimental and on-road studies. It assesses personality traits associated with driving,

grouped into five factors labeled aggression, dislike of driving, fatigue proneness, hazard monitoring, and

thrill seeking. Similar driver trait dimensions have been found in Finnish (Lajunen & Summala, 1995)

and Japanese (Matthews, Tsuda, Xin, & Ozeki, 1999) samples, indicating the robustness of these traits

cross-culturally. According to Matthews (2002), aggression relates to anger while driving, and to goals

for maintaining mastery over other drivers. Dislike of driving corresponds to anxiety and stress associated

with the driving task and to fears about driving competence. Fatigue proneness relates to goals for

avoiding discomfort while driving. Hazard monitoring reflects a desire to preempt threat through vigilant

search for danger. Finally, thrill seeking relates to an interest in or enjoyment of danger while driving.

The five traits assessed by the DSI have been shown to be predictive of ‘real-world’ driving

performance. Aggression, thrill seeking, and less reliably, low hazard monitoring have all been linked to

self-reported accident involvement (Matthews, Dorn, & Glendon, 1991; Matthews et al., 1997; Matthews,
 15

Tsuda, et al., 1999). Matthews (2002) reported that aggression, thrill seeking, and low dislike of driving

have been related to convictions for driving offenses, such as speeding, and to higher self-reported

violations of the law while driving. In addition, aggression, thrill seeking, dislike of driving, fatigue

proneness, and low hazard monitoring have all been linked to high rates of self-reported unintentional

errors committed while driving (Matthews, 2002).

State response to stress. It is also plausible that the effects of driver stress traits on performance

are in part mediated by state responses to the pressures of driving. For example, high dislike individuals

may suffer from impaired attention due to excessive worry that distracts the driver from the task at hand

(Matthews, 1996). However, investigating the mediating role of states as an influence on performance

requires a multidimensional perspective on subjective stress response, which adequately captures the

different ways in which stress may be experienced. The Dundee Stress State Questionnaire (DSSQ;

Matthews et al., 2002) was designed to assess multiple transient state factors associated with stress,

arousal, and fatigue. Factor analysis of the DSSQ has identified three broad stress dimensions of worry,

task engagement, and distress. The DSSQ has been successfully validated in a variety of studies,

including experiments focused on driver stress (see Matthews, Campbell, et al., 1999 for a review).

Collectively, these studies reveal that different stressors elicit qualitatively different patterns of stress

response, which may have differing impacts on performance. For example, states of driver fatigue elicit

task disengagement and distress, and loss of vehicle control produces elevated distress and worry

(Matthews, 2002).

To the extent that driver stress interferes with performance of driving tasks, perhaps through

inwardly focused attention to emotionally relevant stimuli, it may be expected to result in impaired driver

performance, and may potentially intensify the negative consequences of workload transitions.

Additionally, this effect may be exacerbated under conditions which facilitate a withdrawal of task-

directed effort (i.e., under vehicle automation).

 16

Study Objectives and Specific Hypotheses

General goals. The present study was designed to investigate the validity of the resource and

effort-regulation models as foundations for understanding driver performance as affected by automation,

drive difficulty, workload transitions, and subjective state. It examined both external task factors believed

to influence workload and stress, and internal state variables that have previously demonstrated influence

on driver performance. Two factors were experimentally assessed. The first factor was a manipulation of

vehicle automation. Two conditions that featured fully automated vehicle control (both lateral and

longitudinal), designed to resemble proposed future vehicle automation systems and chosen to represent a

high level of automation, were compared with a control condition of manual vehicle control. One

automation condition featured minimal transitions between manual and automated vehicle control; the

other required participants to make repeated shifts in control. The second manipulated factor was of

driving difficulty, achieved by varying the curvature of the roadway (straight or curved). Participants in

all conditions completed a secondary hazard monitoring task during the experimental drive which

provided the opportunity to monitor driver performance under single- and dual-task conditions, and across

the duration of the experiment.

Driver performance and workload. It was predicted that automation would tend to improve

indices of driver performance and hazard monitoring detections, and reduce subjective ratings of

workload. Exposure to difficult driving circumstances (i.e., curved roadways) was predicted to impair

driver performance and hazard detection, and increase subjective workload. The two performance theories

described previously make differing predictions regarding the interactive effects of automation, drive

difficulty, and workload transitions on indices of driver performance and hazard monitoring. Resource

theory predicts that driver performance and hazard detection should be best under conditions that

minimize drive difficulty and exposure to workload transitions (i.e., on straight roads with vehicle

automation and few control transitions) and worst under conditions that impose continuous levels of high

task demand (i.e., on curved roads without automation). By contrast, effort-regulation predicts that driver

performance and hazard monitoring would be best under conditions that require continuous task-directed
 17

effort (i.e., driving manually on curved roads), and poorest under conditions that facilitate a misperception

of the effort required and which minimize task-directed effort (i.e., driving under mixed manual and

automated vehicle control on straight roads).

Subjective state. An additional purpose for the study was to evaluate potential predictors of

individual differences in stress response and performance. It was anticipated that, as in previous studies,

the five factors assessed by the DSI will be predictive of post-task subjective state and indices of task

performance (Matthews et al., 1998). Consistent with previous research linking task engagement and

performance on difficult, attentionally demanding tasks (e.g., Matthews & Davies, 1998), it was predicted

that higher subjective task engagement should correlate with superior task performance. It was further

expected that worry would relate to performance impairment given that worry directs attention away from

task performance to internal concerns (Matthews, 2002).

 18

CHAPTER 2

Method

Participants

One-hundred-twenty students from the Introduction to Psychology pool at the University of

Cincinnati (59 men, 61 women) served as participants in this experiment. They ranged in age from 18 to

29 (M = 19.76 years, SD = 2.22 years). Participants had a valid driver’s license for a mean duration of

3.78 years (SD = 2.18; Range = 1 – 13 years). Participants were asked to estimate the number of miles

they drive annually; 18.33% reported driving less than 5,000 miles per year, 38.33% reported driving

between 5,000 and 10,000 miles per year, 22.50% reported driving between 10,000 and 15,000 miles per

year, 11.67% reported driving between 15,000 and 20,000 miles per year, and 9.17% reported driving

more than 20,000 miles per year. Participants served in the study to receive research credit required for

their class. They were free to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.

Experimental Design

The experiment involved a 2 × 3 between-groups design, with 20 participants assigned to each

condition. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions, with the caveat that equal proportions of

men and women were assigned to each condition. The experimentally manipulated factors were roadway

(straight, curved) and vehicle-automation (manual, continuous-automation, intermittent-automation).

Changes in driver performance across the duration of the driving task were examined by separating the

drive into nine serial periods (pre-task baseline, periods 1-7, post-task baseline), and changes in driver

mood were examined from pre-task to post-task. Dependent variables employed in this study included

subjective measures of post-task state, assessed by the Dundee Stress State Questionnaire (DSSQ;

Matthews, Joyner, Gilliland, Campbell, Huggins, & Falconer, 1999), and workload, assessed by the

NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX; Hart & Staveland, 1988), as well as measures of lateral position,

longitudinal speed, steering wheel rate, and correct secondary task detections obtained through the driving

simulator.
 19

Questionnaires

Driver Stress Inventory (DSI). The DSI (Matthews, Desmond, Joyner, & Carcary, 1997) is an

experimentally validated questionnaire designed to assess an individual’s vulnerability to stress in a

driving context and to evaluate the coping methods typically employed by that individual under stressful

driving conditions. The first section of the DSI is comprised of 12 items designed to evaluate driving

habits and history, including questions concerning length of time since obtaining a license, typical driving

habits, and frequency and severity of driving infractions. The second section is comprised of 41 items

designed to assess a driver on five dimensions of driver stress vulnerability; as described previously, these

five factors correspond to aggression, dislike of driving, hazard monitoring, thrill seeking, and fatigue

proneness. DSI scores are scaled so that they may range from 0-100.

Dundee Stress State Questionnaire (DSSQ). The DSSQ (Matthews et al., 2002) is a 96-item,

experimentally validated measure designed to assess transient states associated with stress, arousal, and

fatigue, and to reflect the multidimensionality of these states. Items on the DSSQ have been factor

analyzed into 11 first-order dimensions representing energetic arousal (alertness-sluggishness), tense

arousal (nervousness-relaxation), hedonic tone (pleasantness of mood), intrinsic task motivation, success-

related motivation, self-focused attention (self-awareness, daydreaming, etc.), self esteem, concentration,

confidence and control, task-relevant cognitive interference (worry about task performance), and task-

irrelevant cognitive interference (worry about personal concerns). These correlated scales cluster into

three second-order ‘super factors’ associated with task engagement (energetic arousal, motivation, and

concentration), distress (tense arousal, hedonic tone, and confidence and control) and worry (self-focused

attention, self-esteem, and both cognitive-interference scales).

Factor scores for the three higher-order factors utilized in this experiment were calculated from

regression equations using weights derived from a previous study providing normative data (Matthews et

al., 2002). That is, each factor score was estimated as a weighted sum of the first-order scales, using scale

values that were standardized against the normative data. Factor scores are distributed with a mean of 0
 20

and standard deviation of 1, so that the values calculated for a sample represent deviations from

normative values in standard deviation units.

NASA-Task Load Index (TLX). The TLX (Hart & Staveland, 1988) is a standard measure of

perceived mental workload that is widely used in human performance research (Wickens & Hollands,

2000). The TLX consists of six rating scales designed to reflect the degree of mental demand, physical

demand, temporal demand, performance, effort, and frustration associated with a task; scales range in

value from 0-100. The mean of the ratings given to all of the scales provides an overall or global index of

workload, while the rating for each subscale provides an index of the contribution of the dimensions

represented in that subscale to the workload of the task. Copies of all of the psychometric instruments

employed in this study can be found in Appendix E.

Driving Simulator

All simulated scenarios presented during this experiment were created using

System Technologies, Incorporated’s ‘STISIM Drive’ software (build version 20802). The simulation

program operated on a Dell Optiplex GX620 PC, equipped with a 3.79 GHz processor and 2 GB of RAM.

The simulation was presented to participants through a Westinghouse LVM-42w2 42-inch LCD monitor.

Participants interacted with the simulation by means of a Logitech MOMO Racing Force Feedback Wheel

(model 963282-0403), which included a steering wheel capable of providing realistic feedback by means

of a computer-controlled torque motor, gas and brake pedals, and an adjustable car seat.

Driving Tasks

Practice drive. Prior to experimental data collection, participants in all conditions completed a

15-minute practice drive. This drive was designed to familiarize them with the driving simulator, its

controls, and the driving tasks that they would engage in during data collection. The practice drive was

divided into three periods; each period provided participants the opportunity to practice different aspects

of the experimental drive. Throughout the practice drive, the posted speed limit was 35 mph. The

roadway consisted of two lanes separated by a double yellow line. Each lane was 12 feet wide, and was
 21

bordered by a seven-foot wide road shoulder. Occasionally, the road would change from straight to

curved for short sections of the drive. No other traffic was included in the practice drive.

During the first period of the practice, participants drove normally (i.e., without any automation)

to familiarize themselves with controlling the simulated vehicle. This period of manual control lasted for

approximately six minutes. Following this, participants in the continuous-automation and intermittent-

automation conditions experienced a period of automatic vehicle control, during which the computer

regulated the lateral position and longitudinal speed of the vehicle. Automatic vehicle control was

accomplished using the ‘control vehicle’ command, a standard command of the STISIM driving simulator

programming language. These simulator functions activated and ceased at preprogrammed intervals

without input from participants (i.e., no decision or consent was required from participants). Entrance into

this second period of the practice drive was signaled to participants by the appearance of two green stars,

one on each side of the roadway. The stars were 5 feet in diameter, centered 2.5 feet from the edge of the

roadway, and hovered in midair. While automatically controlling participants’ vehicles, the simulation

maintained each vehicle in the center of the lane at a constant speed of 35 mph. Participants were

informed that while the simulation was controlling the vehicle, the steering wheel, accelerator, and brake

pedals would not function. Further, they were informed that the simulated automation was not perfect,

and that they would need to reestablish control of the vehicle if it malfunctioned. Participants in the

manual condition did not experience this period of automated driving, but instead continued driving

normally. The end of the automation period was signaled to participants by the appearance of a pair of red

stars, which were otherwise identical to the previously described green stars. The second period of the

practice drive lasted approximately four minutes.

The final phase of the practice drive was signaled to participants by a series of three orange

construction barrels, each approximately 3 feet in diameter, located on the right and left sides of the

roadway. The roadway during this period was similar to that of the second period, except that the

roadway was straight throughout. During this phase, participants were given the opportunity to practice a

hazard-monitoring task that they would also be required to perform during the experimental drive. In this
 22

task, pedestrian pairs were stationed directly opposite one another on the shoulders of both sides of the

roadway. They were positioned five feet from the roadway and spaced approximately 200 feet apart. As is

illustrated in Figure 1, one pedestrian of a pair would occasionally begin to walk into the roadway. These

pedestrian icons were meant to simulate potential road hazards. The participant’s task was to detect the

moving pedestrians (the critical signals) and to indicate, using a pair of paddle shifters located on the

underside of the steering wheel, which side of the roadway a moving pedestrian was located on.

Participants were instructed to activate the right paddle for pedestrians on the right side of the road, or the

left paddle for pedestrians on the left side of the road. In all cases, moving pedestrians were programmed

to stop walking before they entered into the roadway (i.e., the task did not require participants to

maneuver around pedestrians in the roadway). Moving pedestrians walked at a rate of 0.2 feet per second.

Pilot testing indicated that participants’ detection rate of the moving pedestrians was approximately 65%,

suggesting that the task was relatively difficult. At a driving speed of 35 mph (the posted speed limit),

pedestrian pairs constituted a stimulus event rate of 15 pairs per minute. Participants were given 5.5

seconds to detect and respond to the moving pedestrians (5 seconds before the participant arrived at the

location of the pedestrian, and .5 seconds as they passed the pedestrian). The computer recorded the

participant’s reaction time and response to each moving pedestrian (correct, incorrect, and no response).

Participants first encountered 15 pedestrian pairs designed to demonstrate the appearance of the

moving pedestrians. As such, 12 of these pairs (80%) featured a critical signal. It was intended that this

high critical signal rate would allow them to observe the appearance of the moving pedestrians. Next,

participants drove a short section of roadway which did not feature pedestrian pairs. Lastly, they were

given a chance to practice the hazard monitoring task under conditions that were similar to those of the

experimental drive. The last set of pedestrians consisted of 60 pairs, of which eight were critical signals.

Critical signals appeared at a rate of 2 per minute, in equal numbers on the right and left sides of the

roadway. At the end of the second set of practice pedestrians, the simulator ended the practice drive. The

third period lasted approximately 5.5 minutes, bringing the duration of the practice drive to approximately

15.5 minutes in length.

 23

Figure 1. A scene from the straight roadway condition of the experimental drive. The pedestrian on the
right shoulder is walking into the roadway (i.e., the pedestrian is a critical signal).

Experimental drive. Following the practice drive, participants completed the experimental drive

in their assigned experimental condition. In all conditions, the posted speed limit was 35 mph and no

other roadway traffic was present. During the experimental drive, the ‘shape’ of the roadway was

determined by the roadway factor. The straight roadway condition featured no curvature. As is illustrated

in Figure 2, the curved roadway condition, on the other hand, featured no straight sections; it consisted of

continuous ‘s-curves,’ which required participants to make frequent course corrections to remain on the

roadway. In all other ways, the roadway of the experimental drive was identical to that of the practice

drive.

The experimental drive was separated into nine serial periods; the task requirements for each

period were determined by the vehicle-automation factor. In all conditions, the first and last periods of the

experimental drive were baseline measures of driver performance; each lasted approximately one minute.

Following the pre-task baseline were seven consecutive periods, each approximately seven minutes in

duration. In the manual vehicle-automation condition, participants completed each driving period

‘normally’ (i.e., the simulated vehicle operated similarly to a ‘real-world’ vehicle, without any automated
 24

Figure 2. A scene from the curved roadway condition of the experimental drive. Neither pedestrian
depicted is a critical signal.

aides). In the continuous-automation condition, participants drove normally during both baseline

measurements, but the vehicle operated under computer control at all other times. In the intermittent-

automation condition, participants shifted between manual and automatic control of the vehicle.

Participants in this condition drove manually during both baselines, and during periods one, three, five,

and seven. During periods two, four, and six the vehicle operated under automatic control. A summary of

vehicle control for each vehicle-automation condition in each period is displayed in Table 1.

Table 1
Summary of vehicle control for each vehicle-automation condition in each period.
Period
Vehicle-
automation Pre-task Post-task
condition baseline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 baseline
Manual M M M M M M M M M
Continuous-
M A A A A A A A M
automation
Intermittent-
M M A M A M A M M
automation
Note. M = manual vehicle control. A = automated vehicle control.
 25

During periods one through seven of the experimental drive, participants in all conditions were

required to perform the previously described pedestrian monitoring task. Pedestrian pairs appeared at a

rate of 15 per minute. Ninety-eight critical signals (moving pedestrians) were included during the

experimental drive, occurring at a rate of two critical signals per minute; these signals occurred in equal

numbers on the right and left sides of the roadway. The duration of the experimental drive was

approximately 51 minutes.

General Procedure

Participants were tested in a windowless laboratory room. After arriving at the experiment, they

were required to complete an informed consent form and present a valid driver’s license. Participants with

restricted licenses were also required to wear their corrective lenses to participate. Those who did not

have a valid driver’s license or their corrective lenses at the time of the experiment were not permitted to

participate.

Next, participants were assigned to an experimental condition according to a randomized

schedule. They were then asked to complete the DSI and the pre-task DSSQ. After completing the

questionnaires, participants were informed that they would begin the driving task. Participants sat

approximately 4 feet from the LCD monitor at a small table, upon which was the steering box, and below

which the accelerator and brake pedals were positioned. The height of the table and the distance between

the car seat and the table were both adjustable, thereby allowing participants to customize each until they

were comfortable. Participants then completed the practice drive, followed by the experimental drive.

Prior to each, the experimenter read participants a brief verbal description concerning the driving

simulator’s controls and the pedestrian hazard monitoring task (complete instructions for each condition

may be found in Appendix A). Participants in the continuous-automation and intermittent-automation

conditions were also read an additional passage concerning the automated vehicle control they would

experience, and cautioned about the possibility of an automation failure.

 26

After the termination of all driving tasks, participants completed the NASA-TLX and the post-

task DSSQ, with instructions to complete the questionnaire with specific reference to the test drive. The

entire experiment was completed in approximately 2 hours.

 27

CHAPTER 3

Results

During the experimental drive, the simulation software recorded driver performance data at a rate

of approximately ten samples per second. The program logged the mean and standard deviation (SD) of

each driver’s lateral position (in feet), longitudinal speed (in mph), and steering wheel rate (in radians per

second). A program was written using Microsoft Visual Basic .NET to compress the resultant raw data

into one minute intervals for further analysis. In addition, the simulation recorded the reaction time, the

number of correct secondary task detections (‘hits’), and the number of incorrect secondary task

detections (‘false alarms’) made by each participant. Across experimental conditions and periods,

however, approximately 40% of participants made no false alarms, and among the remaining participants

who did, the false alarm rate was very low (less than 2%). Therefore, examination of driver performance

on the secondary hazard monitoring task will be limited to measures of percentage correct detections and

reaction time, and will not include signal detection theory analyses of perceptual sensitivity and bias.

Driver Performance

To examine the driver performance data for changes across periods, driver performance indices

were compared across periods 1, 3, 5, and 7; these corresponded to periods of manual vehicle control in

the manual and intermittent-automation conditions. For each subsequently reported index of driver

performance (lateral position, longitudinal speed, steering wheel rate), the mean and SD were computed

for each participant in each period. The continuous-automation condition was excluded from these

analyses because lateral position and longitudinal speed were controlled by the simulator. Driver

performance indices were tested for statistical significance through separate 2 (roadway) × 2 (vehicle-

automation) × 4 (period) mixed-model ANOVAs, in which roadway and vehicle-automation were

between-groups factors and period was a within-groups factor. In all subsequently reported analyses

involving repeated measures with more than two levels of the factor, Box’s epsilon was employed to
 28

correct for violations of the sphericity assumption (Maxwell & Delaney, 2004). Complete summaries of

all reported ANOVAs are presented in Appendix C.

Mean lateral position. Analysis of the mean lateral position data did not reveal any statistically

significant differences between conditions (all p > .05).

Mean SD of lateral position. Analysis of the mean SD of lateral position indicated statistically

significant main effects for roadway, F (1, 76) = 112.75, p < .05, and period, F (2.51, 190.71) = 8.65, p <

.05. All other sources of variance in the analysis were not statistically significant (p > .05). As is

illustrated in Figure 3, participants displayed less variation in their lateral position in the straight roadway

condition, compared to the curved condition. In addition, participants in both conditions displayed greater

variation in lateral position across periods.

2
Mean SD of Lateral Position

1.5
(ft.)

0.5
Straight
Curved
0
1 3 5 7

Period
Figure 3. Mean SD of lateral position as a function of roadway condition and period. Error bars are
standard errors.

Mean longitudinal speed. Analysis of the mean longitudinal speed indicated a statistically

significant main effect of period, F (2.24, 170.32) = 13.55, p < .05, and a statistically significant roadway

× period interaction, F (2.24, 170.32) = 4.17, p < .05. All other sources of variance in the analysis were

not statistically significant (p > .05).

The observed roadway × period interaction was further examined using separate repeated

measures ANOVAs, in which period was analyzed independently for each roadway condition. In these
 29

and all subsequently reported post-hoc analyses, the Dunn-Sidak alpha correction was used to control

Type I error rates (Kirk, 1995). A statistically significant main effect of period, F (2.55, 99.57) = 17.99, p

< .05, was detected for the curved roadway condition; no such effect was detected for the straight

condition (p > .05). As can be seen in Figure 4, participants in the curved roadway condition initially

drove more slowly than participants in the straight condition. However, mean longitudinal speeds were

similar in both conditions during periods 3, 5, and 7.

37
Mean Longitudinal Speed

36

35
34
(mph)

33
32
Straight
31
Curved
30
1 3 5 7

Period

Figure 4. Mean longitudinal speed as a function of roadway condition and period. Error bars are standard
errors.

Mean SD of longitudinal speed. Results of the analysis of the mean SD of longitudinal speed

indicated statistically significant main effects for roadway, F (1, 76) = 5.44, p < .05, and period, F (2.35,

178.76) = 4.76, p < .05. All other sources of variance in the analysis were not statistically significant (p >

.05). As is illustrated in Figure 5, participants displayed less variation in longitudinal speed in the straight

roadway condition compared to the curved condition. In addition, participants’ variation in longitudinal

speed increased across periods.

 30

Mean SD of Longitudinal
1.5

Speed (mph) 1

0.5
Straight
Curved
0
1 3 5 7

Period
Figure 5. Mean SD of longitudinal speed as a function of roadway condition and period. Error bars are
standard errors.

Mean steering wheel rate. Analysis of the mean steering wheel rate data indicated statistically

significant main effects of roadway, F (1, 76) = 790.71, p < .05, and period, F (1.95, 147.93) = 4.01, p <

.05. No other sources of variance in the analysis were significant (all p > .05). As can be seen in Figure 6,

participants made smaller steering wheel inputs in the straight roadway condition compared to the curved

condition. Additionally, participants made larger steering wheel inputs across periods.

0.2
Mean Steering Wheel Rate

Straight
Curved
0.15
(rad/s)

0.1

0.05

0
1 3 5 7

Period
Figure 6. Mean steering wheel rate as a function of roadway condition and period. Error bars are standard
errors.
 31

Mean SD of steering wheel rate. Analysis of the mean SD of steering wheel rate data indicated

statistically significant main effects for roadway, F (1, 76) = 621.08, p < .05, and period, F (2.24, 170.02)

= 15.73, p < .05, and a statistically significant roadway × period interaction, F (2.24, 170.02) = 15.93, p <

.05.

To further explore the observed roadway × period interaction, separate repeated measures

ANOVAs were calculated in which period was analyzed independently for each roadway condition. A

statistically significant main effect for period was found for both the curved, F (2.85, 111.03) = 9.62, p <

.05, and straight roadway conditions, F (2.08, 81.05) = 16.93, p < .05. The mean SD of steering wheel

rate for each period and roadway condition is displayed in Figure 7. As is illustrated in the figure,

participants exhibited greater variability in steering across periods; however, this effect was more

pronounced in the curved roadway condition.

Mean SD of Steering Wheel

Straight
0.3
Curved
Rate (rad/s)

0.2

0.1

0
1 3 5 7
Period

Figure 7. Mean SD of steering wheel rate (rad/s) as a function of roadway condition and period. Error
bars are standard errors.

Hazard Monitoring Task

Percentage correct detections. During the experimental drive, participants completed the

pedestrian monitoring task during periods 1 through 7. Fourteen critical signals were presented per period

minute, for a total of 98 critical signals in the experiment. Using participants’ number of correct
 32

pedestrian detections, the percentage of correct pedestrian detections were calculated for each participant

in each period, and compared through a 2 (roadway) × 3 (vehicle-automation) × 7 (period) mixed-model

ANOVA, in which roadway and vehicle-automation were between-groups factors and period was a

within-groups factor.

The analysis revealed statistically significant main effects for vehicle-automation condition, F (2,

114) = 3.19, p < .05, and period, F (5.14, 585.75) = 3.87, p < .05, and statistically significant roadway ×

period, F (5.14, 585.75) = 4.82, p < .05, and vehicle-automation × period interactions, F (10.28, 585.75) =

5.29, p < .05. All other sources of variance in the analysis were not statistically significant (p > .05).

To further investigate the roadway × period interaction, separate repeated measures ANOVAs

were calculated in which period was analyzed independently for the straight and curved roadway

conditions. A statistically significant main effect of period was detected in the straight roadway condition,

F (4.24, 250.57) = 5.91, p < .05; however, no such effect was detected in the curved condition (p > .05).

As is illustrated in Figure 8, participants in the straight roadway condition initially correctly detected a

greater percentage of the pedestrian hazards. Across periods, however, their detection performance

decreased to levels comparable to participants in the curved roadway condition.

85
Mean Percentage Correct

80

75
Detections

70

65

60
Straight
55
Curved
50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Period
Figure 8. Mean percentage of correct pedestrian detections as a function of roadway condition and
period. Error bars are standard errors.
 33

To further investigate the vehicle-automation × period interaction, separate repeated measures

ANOVAs were calculated in which period was analyzed independently for each vehicle-automation

condition. A statistically significant main effect of period was detected for the continuous-automation

condition, F (3.97, 154.74) = 11.38, p < .05; however, no such effect was detected for the manual and

intermittent-automation conditions (both p > .05). The mean percentage of correct pedestrian detections

for each vehicle automation conditions is illustrated in Figure 9. As can be seen in the figure, participants

in the continuous-automation condition initially correctly detected a greater percentage of the pedestrian

hazards. Across periods, however, their performance decreased to levels comparable to that of the manual

and intermittent-automation conditions.

100
Mean Percentage Correct

Manual

90 Cont.-Auto.
Inter.-Auto.
Detections

80

70

60

50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Period
Figure 9. Mean percentage of correct pedestrian detections as a function of vehicle-automation condition
and period. Error bars are standard errors.

Reaction time. Participants’ mean reaction times for correct pedestrian detections were calculated

for each period. However, 6 participants failed to make at least 1 correct detection in 1 or more periods of

the experimental drive; these participants were excluded from further analyses concerning reaction time

data. Mean reaction times in each condition were compared using a 2 (roadway) × 3 (vehicle-automation)

× 7 (period) mixed-model ANOVA, in which roadway and vehicle-automation were between-groups

factors and period was a within-groups factor.

 34

The analysis revealed statistically significant main effects for roadway, F (1, 108) = 3.92, p < .05,

and period, F (4.55, 490.99) = 5.43, p < .05, as well as statistically significant vehicle-automation ×

period, F (9.09, 490.99) = 2.25, p < .05, and roadway × vehicle-automation × period interactions, F (9.09,

490.99) = 2.12, p < .05. All other sources of variance in the analysis were not statistically significant (all

p > .05).

To further investigate the roadway × vehicle-automation × period interaction, separate mixed-

model ANOVAs were calculated in which vehicle-automation and period were analyzed independently

for each roadway condition. A statistically significant main effect of period, F (4.13, 223.14) = 3.75, p <

.05, and a statistically significant vehicle-automation × period interaction, F (8.26, 223.14) = 3.30, p <

.05, were detected for the curved roadway condition; no such effects were detected for the straight

condition (all p > .05). The vehicle-automation × period interaction in the curved roadway condition was

further examined by means of separate repeated measures ANOVAs in which period was analyzed

independently for each vehicle-automation condition. These analyses indicated a statistically significant

main effect of period in the continuous-automation condition, F (3.87, 73.60) = 12.19, p < .05; no period

effects were detected for the manual or intermittent-automation conditions (both p > .05). As is illustrated

in Figure 10, participants’ reaction time in the curved roadway continuous-automation condition slowed

across periods.
 35

5.3

Mean Reaction Time (s)

5.0

4.8

4.5
Manual
4.3 Cont.-Auto.
Inter.-Auto.
4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Period

Figure 10. Mean reaction time in the curved roadway condition as a function of vehicle-automation
condition and period. Error bars are standard errors.

Transitions Between Manual and Automated Vehicle Control

As was previously presented in Table 1, during the experimental drive, participants in the

continuous-automation and intermittent-automation conditions experienced at least one transition from

manual to automated vehicle control, and a subsequent transition from automated to manual vehicle

control. Participants in the continuous-automation condition drove manually during the pre-task baseline,

followed by automated vehicle control during periods 1 through 7, and finally manual control during the

post-task baseline. Participants in the intermittent-automation condition experienced three shifts from

manual to automated vehicle control (in transitioning from period 1 to period 2, from period 3 to period 4,

and from period 5 to period 6), and three shifts from automated to manual control (from period 2 to period

3, from period 4 to period 5, and from period 6 to period 7).

Automated vehicle control, achieved through the driving simulator, was perfect in this experiment

(i.e. the vehicle did not deviate from the center of the driver’s lane, and maintained a constant 35 mph).

As such, the focus of subsequently presented analyses in this section was on transitions from automated

vehicle control to manual vehicle control. The aim of these analyses was twofold. First, to test for changes

in manual driver performance across periods of automated control; this was accomplished by comparing

driver performance immediately prior to and following automated vehicle control. Second, to determine if
 36

observed changes in driver performance were due to variations over time, or if they were due to exposure

to automated vehicle control. This was accomplished by comparing driver performance in the continuous-

and intermittent-automation conditions relative to performance in the manual condition during the same

periods of time; automation induced performance changes should be indicated by pre-post transition ×

vehicle-automation interactions.

To examine the effects of transition from automated to manual vehicle control on driver

performance, the 60 seconds immediately prior to a transition from manual control to automated control,

and the 60 seconds immediately following a transition from automated control to manual control were

selected for comparison. Based on the observations of Scallen, Hancock, and Duley (1995) concerning

the potentially short durations of automation-related transition effects, the 60 second interval following a

transition from automated to manual control was further subdivided into four 15-second serial segments

to facilitate examination of driver performance across the transition period. In these analyses, the effects

of the experimentally manipulated factors on indices of variation in driver performance (i.e. SD of lateral

position, SD of longitudinal speed, SD of steering wheel rate) were tested using separate 2 (roadway) × 3

(vehicle-automation) × 5 (transition segment) mixed-model ANOVAs, in which roadway and vehicle-

automation were between-groups factors and transition segment was a within-groups factor. For these

analyses, segment 0 corresponded to the 60 seconds immediately prior to a transition from manual control

to automated control, and segments 1-4 corresponded to the 15-second intervals immediately following

transition from automated to manual control.

In addition, during the experimental drive, the simulator recorded the number of moving

violations each driver made during each control transition. To examine these data for differences due to

the experimental manipulations, two categories of moving violations were established: lane deviations

and major violations. Lane deviations were defined as drivers exiting their lane either by crossing the

center yellow line into the opposite lane, or by crossing the white line onto the road’s shoulder. Major

violations were defined as drivers colliding with a pedestrian or drivers exiting the roadway (by crossing

out of their lane, across the road shoulder, and into the verge). These specific types of driver violations
 37

were selected for analysis due to the potential severity of consequences for both the driver and others (e.g.

other motorists, pedestrians, etc.) in the event of their occurrence. Seven participants committed major

violations during transition periods (2 in the manual condition, 2 in the continuous-automation condition,

3 in the intermittent-automation condition). Following a major violation, the simulator repositioned the

driver’s vehicle to the center of their lane, and set their speed to zero. These changes took the driving

simulator several seconds to accomplish, during which, all driver performance indices were recorded as

zero by the simulator. As such, the data for participants who committed major violations were excluded

from all analyses concerning the transition periods in which those violations occurred.

Continuous-automation

Mean SD of lateral position. The analysis of the transition from automated to manual control

indicated statistically significant main effects of roadway condition, F (1, 74) = 25.77, p < .05, and

transition segment, F (1.80, 129.34) = 31.07, p < .05, and statistically significant roadway × vehicle-

automation, F (1, 74) = 5.86, p < .05, roadway × transition segment, F (1.80, 129.34) = 26.87, p < .05,

and roadway × vehicle-automation × transition segment interactions, F (1.80, 129.34) = 4.29, p < .05.

To further investigate the roadway × vehicle-automation × transition segment interaction, separate mixed-

model ANOVAs were calculated in which vehicle-automation and period were analyzed independently

for each roadway condition. A statistically significant main effect of segment was detected for the curved

roadway condition, F (1.51, 54.48) = 33.15, p < .05; no such effects were detected for the straight

condition (all p > .05). As the change in lateral variability across segments in the curved roadway

condition was observed in both the manual and intermittent-automation conditions, indicating that the

effect was not solely due to transition from automated to manual control, further post-hoc analyses were

discontinued.

Mean SD of longitudinal speed. Analysis of the transition from automated to manual control

revealed statistically significant main effects of roadway, F (1, 74) = 12.45, p < .05, and segment, F (2.47,

173.09) = 516.96, p < .05, and statistically significant roadway × transition segment, F (2.47, 173.09) =
 38

3.18, p < .05, and vehicle-automation × transition segment interactions, F (2.47, 173.09) = 2.93, p < .05.

As the roadway × transition segment interaction was not dependent on vehicle-automation condition,

further post-hoc analyses of this effect were not pursued. However, the vehicle-automation × transition

segment interaction was examined by means of separate repeated measures ANOVAs, in which transition

segment was analyzed independently for each vehicle-automation condition. Statistically significant main

effects of transition segment were detected for the manual, F (2.35, 84.48) = 233.57, p < .05, and

continuous-automation conditions, F (2.75, 98.90) = 283.77, p < .05. As is illustrated in Figure 11,

participants in the manual and continuous-automation conditions displayed a less variation in longitudinal

speed during the post-task baseline compared to the pre-task baseline. However, the pattern of variation is

similar across vehicle-automation conditions, indicating that the observed effect is not due to the

transition from automated to manual vehicle control.

5
Mean SD of Longitudinal

Manual
4 Cont.-Auto.
Speed (mph)

0
0 1 2 3 4

Segment
Figure 11. Mean SD of longitudinal speed as a function of vehicle-automation condition and transition
segment. Depicted are performance changes from pre-task baseline (segment 0) to post-task baseline
(segments 1 through 4). Error bars are standard errors.

Mean SD of steering wheel rate. Analysis of the transition from automated to manual control

indicated statistically significant main effects of roadway condition, F (1, 74) = 26.19, p < .05, and

transition segment, F (1.28, 59.58) = 30.14, p < .05, and statistically significant roadway × transition

segment, F (1.28, 59.58) = 24.36, p < .05, and vehicle-automation × transition segment interactions, F
 39

(1.28, 59.58) = 4.92, p < .05. As the roadway × transition segment interaction was not dependent on

vehicle-automation condition, further post-hoc analyses of this effect were not pursued.

To further explore the transition segment × vehicle-automation interaction, separate repeated

measures ANOVAs were calculated in which transition segment was analyzed independently for each

vehicle-automation condition. These analyses indicated statistically significant main effects of transition

segment for both the manual, F (1.90, 68.41) = 16.56, p < .05, and continuous-automation conditions, F

(1.13, 40.50) = 13.04, p < .05. The mean SD of steering wheel rate as a function of transition segment and

vehicle-automation condition is illustrated in Figure 12. As can be seen in the figure, participants in the

continuous-automation condition displayed a sharp increase in steering variability in segment 1 (i.e.,

during the transition from automated to manual vehicle control). Moreover, the degree of variation was

greater in the continuous-automation condition compared to the manual condition, suggesting that the

difference was due to the shift from automated to manual vehicle control.

0.15
Mean SD of Steering Wheel

Manual
Cont.-Auto.
Rate (rad/s)

0.1

0.05

0
0 1 2 3 4

Transition Segment
Figure 12. Mean SD of steering wheel rate as a function of transition segment and vehicle-automation
condition. Depicted are performance changes from pre-task baseline (segment 0) to post-task baseline
(segments 1 through 4). Error bars are standard errors.

Lane deviations. A Kruskal-Wallis H-test was utilized to examine the lane deviations data for

differences in the frequency of lane deviations made during the transition from automated to manual

control due to the experimental manipulations. In this test, the factorial combinations of roadway
 40

(straight, curved) and vehicle-automation (manual, continuous-automation) conditions were entered as

separate groups for analysis. The results of the analysis indicated a statistically significant difference in

the median number of lane deviations between conditions, χ2 (3, N = 80) = 24.66, p < .05. Post-hoc

Mann-Whitney U-tests did not reveal any statistically significant differences in the number of lane

deviations between the manual and continuous-automation conditions, for either roadway condition (both

p > .05). However, a trend within the data suggested that, in the curved roadway condition, the median

number of lane deviations was greater in the continuous-automation condition (median = 1) compared to

the manual condition (median = 0) (p < .10).

The lane deviations data were also analyzed for differences in the number of participants

committing these errors during the transition, using a Chi-square test in which vehicle-automation was

analyzed independently for each roadway condition. However, no statistically significant differences

between the manual and continuous-automation conditions were detected (p > .05).

Major violations. A Kruskal-Wallis H-test was again utilized to examine the major violations data

for differences in the frequency of such violations due to the experimental manipulations. However, no

statistically significant differences between the manual and intermittent-automation conditions were

detected (all p > .05).

The major violations data were also analyzed for differences in the number of participants

committing these errors during the transition, by means of separate Chi-square tests in which vehicle-

automation was analyzed independently for each roadway condition. However, no statistically significant

differences between the manual and intermittent-automation conditions were detected (all p > .05).

Intermittent-automation

As previously mentioned, participants in the intermittent-automation condition experienced three

transitions from automated vehicle control to manual control during the experimental drive: from period 2

to period 3, from period 4 to period 5, and from period 6 to period 7. Changes in driver performance due

to control transitions were tested using 2 (roadway) × 3 (vehicle-automation) × 5 (transition segment)

 41

mixed-model ANOVAs; each transition was examined using a separate ANOVA. In all such analyses,

roadway and vehicle-automation were between-groups factors and transition segment was a within-

groups factor.

Mean SD of lateral position. In the transition from period 2 to period 3, results of the analysis

indicated statistically significant main effects of roadway condition, F (1, 76) = 175.14, p < .05, vehicle-

automation condition, F (1, 76) = 10.89, p < .05, and transition segment, F (1.75, 132.69) = 9.92, p < .05,

and statistically significant roadway × vehicle-automation, F (1, 76) = 8.88, p < .05, roadway × transition

segment, F (1.75, 132.69) = 10.57, p < .05, vehicle-automation × transition segment, F (1.75, 132.69) =

5.27, p < .05, and transition segment × roadway × vehicle-automation interactions, F (1.75, 132.69) =

4.95, p < .05.

To further explore the roadway × vehicle-automation × transition segment interaction, separate

mixed-model ANOVAs were calculated in which vehicle-automation and period were analyzed

independently for each roadway condition. Analysis of the straight roadway condition revealed no

statistically significant differences between conditions (p > .05); analysis of the curved roadway

condition, however, indicated statistically significant main effects of transition segment, F (1.46, 55.51) =

11.64, p < .05, and vehicle-automation, F (1, 38) = 12.85, p < .05, and a statistically significant vehicle-

automation × transition segment interaction, F (1.46, 55.51) = 5.97, p < .05.

The transition segment × vehicle-automation interaction in the curved roadway condition was

further examined by means of separate repeated measures ANOVAs in which transition segment was

analyzed independently for each vehicle-automation condition. These analyses indicated statistically

significant main effects of transition segment for both the manual, F (3.12, 59.18) = 7.36, p < .05, and

intermittent-automation conditions, F (1.31, 24.91) = 8.95, p < .05. The mean SD of lateral position in the

curved roadway condition as a function of transition segment and vehicle-automation condition is

illustrated in Figure 13. As can be seen in the figure, participants in the intermittent-automation condition

displayed a sharp increase in lateral variability in segment 1 (i.e., during the transition from automated to

manual vehicle control). The magnitude of disruption was greater in the intermittent-automation condition
 42

compared to the manual condition, suggesting that the difference was due to the shift from automated to

manual vehicle control.

Mean SD of Lateral Position Manual

3
Inter.-Auto.

2
(ft.)

0
0 1 2 3 4

Transition Segment
Figure 13. Mean SD of lateral position in the curved roadway condition as a function of transition segment
and vehicle-automation condition. Depicted are performance changes from period 1 (segment 0) to period
3 (segments 1 through 4). Error bars are standard errors.

Analysis of the transitions from period 4 to 5 and from period 6 to 7 revealed no statistically

significant transition segment × vehicle-automation interactions (all p > .05).

Mean SD of longitudinal speed. Analyses of the mean SD of longitudinal speed data for the

transitions from period 2 to 3 and from period 4 to 5 revealed no statistically significant pre-post

transition × vehicle-automation interactions (all p > .05). Analysis of the transition from period 6 to

period 7, on the other hand, revealed a statistically significant main effect of transition segment, F (3.27,

248.23) = 15.43, p < .05), and a statistically significant vehicle-automation × transition segment

interaction, F (3.27, 248.23) = 6.40, p < .05.

The observed transition segment × vehicle-automation interaction for the transition from period 6

to period 7 was further examined by means of separate repeated measures ANOVAs in which transition

segment was analyzed independently for each vehicle-automation condition. These analyses indicated

statistically significant main effects of transition segment for both the manual, F (2.65, 103.33) = 12.30, p

< .05, and intermittent-automation conditions, F (3.17, 123.70) = 7.90, p < .05. As can be seen in Figure
 43

14, variability in longitudinal speed decreased across segments in both vehicle-automation conditions,

though variability was greater in the intermittent-automation condition during segments 1 and 2,

suggesting this was due to a control transition effect.

2
Manual
Mean SD of Longitudinal

Inter.-Auto.
1.5
Speed (mph)

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4

Segment

Figure 14. Mean SD of longitudinal speed as a function of vehicle-automation condition and transition
segment. Depicted are performance changes from period 5 (segment 0) to period 7 (segments 1 through
4). Error bars are standard errors.

Mean SD of steering wheel rate. Analyses of the mean SD of steering wheel rate for the

transitions from period 2 to 3 and from period 4 to 5 revealed no statistically significant vehicle-

automation × transition segment interactions (all p > .05). For the transition from period 6 to period 7,

statistically significant main effects for roadway condition, F (1, 75) = 886.61, p < .05, and transition

segment, F (2.66, 199.29) = 192.16, p < .05, and statistically significant transition segment × roadway, F

(2.66, 199.29) = 69.96, p < .05, and roadway × vehicle-automation × transition segment, F (2.66, 199.29)

= 3.02, p < .05, interactions were detected.

To further explore the roadway × vehicle-automation × transition segment interaction observed

for the transition from period 6 to period 7, separate mixed-model ANOVAs were calculated in which

vehicle-automation and segment were analyzed independently for each roadway condition. Analysis of

the straight roadway condition revealed a statistically significant main effect of transition segment, F

(2.60, 98.84) = 52.16, p < .05, and a statistically significant vehicle-automation × transition segment
 44

interaction, F (2.60, 98.84) = 5.36, p < .05. Analysis of the curved roadway condition, however, indicated

a statistically significant main effect of transition segment, F (2.53, 93.44) = 143.40, p < .05. As the main

effect of transition segment in the curved roadway condition was not dependent on vehicle-automation

condition, further post-hoc analyses were not pursued.

The transition segment × vehicle-automation interaction in the straight roadway condition was

further examined by means of separate repeated measures ANOVAs in which transition segment was

analyzed independently for each vehicle-automation condition. These analyses indicated statistically

significant main effects of transition segment for both the manual, F (2.01, 38.16) = 42.86, p < .05, and

intermittent-automation conditions, F (1.96, 37.18) = 19.94, p < .05. The mean SD of steering wheel rate

in the straight roadway condition as a function of transition segment and vehicle-automation condition is

illustrated in Figure 15. As can be seen in the figure, variability in steering wheel rate decreased across

segments in both vehicle-automation conditions, though variability was greater in the intermittent-

automation condition during segments 1, suggesting this may be due to a control transition effect.

0.06
Mean SD of Steering Wheel

Manual
Inter.-Auto.
Rate (rad/s)

0.04

0.02

0
0 1 2 3 4

Segment

Figure 15. Mean SD of steering wheel rate as a function of vehicle-automation condition and transition
segment. Depicted are performance changes from period 5 (segment 0) to period 7 (segments 1 through
4). Error bars are standard errors.

Lane deviations. Separate Kruskal-Wallis H-tests were utilized to examine the lane deviations

data for differences in the frequency of lane deviations occurring during control transitions due to the
 45

experimental manipulations. As previously, in these tests, the factorial combinations of roadway (straight,

curved) and vehicle-automation (manual, continuous-automation) conditions were entered as separate

groups for analysis. In the transition from period 2 to period 3, the analysis indicated a statistically

significant difference in the median number of lane deviations between conditions, χ2 (3, N = 80) = 29.69,

p < .05. Post-hoc Mann-Whitney U-tests indicated that, in the curved roadway condition, the median

number of lane deviations was greater in the intermittent-automation condition (median = 1) than in the

manual condition (median = 0), U = 110.50, p < .05; however, no such differences was found between the

manual and intermittent-automation conditions in the straight roadway condition (p > .05).

For the transitions between periods 4 and 5, and periods 6 and 7, separate Kruskal-Wallis H-tests

indicated statistically significant differences in the median number of lane deviations between conditions,

χ2 (3, N = 80) = 27.83 and 25.63, respectively, both p < .05. However, follow up Mann-Whitney U-tests

indicated that the observed differences were due to the roadway factor, rather than vehicle-automation

condition.

The lane deviations data were also analyzed for differences in the number of participants

committing these errors during transition periods, by means of separate Chi-square tests in which vehicle-

automation was analyzed independently for each roadway condition in each transition period. The

analysis of the transition from period 2 to period 3 indicated a statistically significant difference between

conditions in regards to the number of participants who committed lane deviations in the manual and

intermittent-automation conditions for the curved roadway condition, χ2 (1, N = 40) = 8.29, p < .05.

Fewer participants in the curved roadway manual condition (frequency = 4) committed lane deviations

during the transition compared to the intermittent-automation condition (frequency = 13). However, no

such difference between was detected for the straight roadway condition (p > .05).

The Chi-square tests for the transitions from periods 4 to 5, and periods 6 to 7 did not identify any

statistically significant differences between the manual and intermittent-automation conditions during

either of the transition periods (both p > .05). However, trends within the data suggested that in the curved
 46

roadway condition, during the transitions from period 4 to 5 and period 6 to 7, fewer participants in the

manual condition committed lane deviations (frequencies = 9 and 8 respectively) compared to the

intermittent-automation condition (frequencies = 15 and 14, respectively) (both p < .10).

Major violations. Separate Kruskal-Wallis H-tests were again utilized to examine the major

violations data for differences in the frequency of such violations due to the experimental manipulations.

However, no statistically significant differences between the manual and intermittent-automation

conditions were detected for any of the transition periods (all p > .05).

The major violations data were also analyzed for differences in the number of participants

committing these errors during transition periods, by means of separate Chi-square tests in which vehicle-

automation was analyzed independently for each roadway condition in each transition period. However,

no statistically significant differences between the manual and intermittent-automation conditions were

detected for any of the transition periods (all p > .05). However, a trend within the data suggested that, for

the transition between periods 4 and 5, in the curved roadway condition, a greater number of participants

in the intermittent-automation condition committed major violations (frequency = 3) compared to the

manual condition (frequency = 0) (p < .10).

Driver Mood and Workload

DSSQ mood. Mean pre-test and post-test standard scores for all experimental conditions are displayed

for the three DSSQ factors in Table 2. Test-retest correlations between the three DSSQ factors pre- and

post-task were .73, .57, and .50 for worry, task engagement, and distress respectively (all p < .05),

indicating that participants mood states were relatively stable from pre- to post-task.
 47

Table 2
Mean Pre-Test and Post-Test Standard Scores for DSSQ Worry, Distress, and Engagement as a
Function of Roadway and Vehicle-Automation Conditions.
Worry Engagement Distress
Exp. Condition Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Straight
Manual .29 (.17) -.08 (.24) .36 (.21) -.79 (.19) -.21 (.18) .35 (.20)
Cont.-auto. .18 (.26) -.06 (.28) .50 (.13) -.79 (.20) -.36 (.12) .29 (.18)
Inter.-auto. .27 (.26) .08 (.26) -.04 (.19) -1.41 (.19) -.23 (.17) .81 (.20)

Curved
Manual .19 (.24) -.02 (.20) .26 (.18) -.43 (.20) -.50 (.19) .40 (.17)
Cont.-auto. .03 (.24) -.13 (.23) .51 (.20) -.77 (.24) -.40 (.21) .37 (.16)
Inter.-auto. .33 (.20) .18 (.22) .65 (.21) -.40 (.24) -.46 (.17) .37 (.20)

Mean .22 (.09) .00 (.10) .38 (.08) -.76 (.09) -.36 (.07) .43 (.07)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are standard errors.

To determine if participants’ initial mood states were similar before exposure to the experimental

conditions to which they were assigned, separate 2 (roadway) × 3 (vehicle-automation) ANOVAs were

calculated utilizing each of the pre-task DSSQ factors as dependent variables. The results of these

analyses indicated that participants reported similar pre-task levels of worry, task engagement, and

distress prior to the experiment (all p > .05).

Next, the effects of the experimentally manipulated factors on drivers’ subjective states were

tested using separate 2 (roadway) × 3 (vehicle-automation) × 2 (pre-post task) mixed-model ANOVAs

utilizing the three DSSQ factors as dependent variables. In these analyses, roadway and vehicle-

automation were between-groups factors and pre-post task was a within-groups factor. The aim of these

analyses was to test for changes in state from pre- to post-task (indicated by a main effect of pre-post

task) and for variation of such changes with the experimental factors (indicated by pre-post task × factor

interactions).

The analyses of the data for the worry, task engagement, and distress factors revealed that the pre-

post task difference was statistically significant for each factor, Fworry (1, 114) = 9.69, p < .05; Fengagement (1,

114) = 218.26, p < .05; Fdistress (1, 114) = 116.95, p < .05. All of the pre-post × factor interactions in the
 48

analyses of each DSSQ dimension lacked significance (p > .05). In total, all three DSSQ factors showed

significant changes in state from pre- to post-task assessment, such that distress increased, but worry and

task engagement decreased.

Driver workload. The effects of the experimentally manipulated factors on drivers’ ratings of

workload were tested using a 2 (roadway) × 3 (vehicle-automation) × 6 (TLX subscale) mixed-model

ANOVA, in which roadway and vehicle-automation were between-groups factors and TLX subscale was

a within-groups factor. The results of the analysis indicated statistically significant main effects for

vehicle-automation, F (2, 114) = 3.49, p < .05, and TLX subscale, F (4.18, 476.00) = 43.13, p < .05. In

addition, though not statistically significant, a trend in the data suggested that participants rated the

workload as lower in the straight roadway condition (M = 51.15, SE = 1.92) compared to the curved

condition (M = 55.57, SE = 1.64) (p < .10).

A post-hoc Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference test (HSD; Kirk, 1995) of vehicle-

automation condition indicated that participants rated their workload as higher in the intermittent-

automation condition (M = 58.00, SE = 1.69) compared to both the manual and continuous-automation

conditions (M = 51.12 and 50.97, SE = 2.46 and 2.25, respectively); no such difference was detected

between the manual and continuous-automation conditions (p > .05).

Mean workload ratings for each TLX subscale are illustrated in Figure 16. A post-hoc Tukey’s

HSD test of the TLX subscales indicated that the three highest rated subscales, mental demand, effort, and

frustration, did not differ significantly from each other (all p > .05), but that each of those scales was rated

significantly higher than the temporal demand, physical demand, and performance subscales (all p < .05).

In addition, the temporal demand subscale was rated as significantly higher than the physical demand and

performance subscales (both p > .05); no ratings difference were found between the physical demand and

performance subscales (p < .05).

 49

100

Mean Workload Rating

75

50

25

0
Mental Physical Temporal Perf. Effort Frust.

TLX Subscale

Figure 16. Mean workload ratings for each TLX subscale. Error bars are standard errors.

Predictors of Post-Task State

Correlations between the pre-task and post-task DSSQ secondary factors and the five dimensions

of driver stress vulnerability assessed by the DSI are displayed in Table 3. Examination of the correlations

indicated that dislike of driving was related to lower task engagement and higher distress prior to the

experimental drive, implying that high dislike drivers anticipated a more stressful driving experience.

Post-task, for the whole sample pooled across task conditions, dislike continued to relate to lower

engagement and higher distress. Hazard monitoring was related to increased task engagement pre- and

post-task. Aggression and thrill seeking were related to increased worry pre- and post-task, and thrill

seeking was related to increased pre-task distress. Fatigue proneness was related to increased pre-task

worry, increased pre- and post-task distress, and decreased pre- and post-task task engagement.
 50

Table 3
Correlations Between DSSQ Pre- and Post-Task Scores and DSI Factors
Task
Worry Distress
Engagement
DSI factors Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Aggression .43** .27** -.02 -.20* .16 .14
Dislike of driving .05 .05 -.27** -.27** .30** .34**
Hazard monitoring .07 .07 .18* .23* .02 -.04
Thrill seeking .40** .27** -.07 -.16 .20* .18
Fatigue proneness .22* .10 -.36** -.27** .33** .38**
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01

To further explore the observed correlations between DSSQ post-task scores and DSI factors,

several hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted. The aim of these regressions was to

assess the predictive power of the DSI factors with other task variables controlled. The purpose of these

analyses was to determine if DSI factors were predictive of post-task DSSQ scores, or if the correlations

between them were simply an effect of pre-task states.

For these regressions, effect-coded vectors for the categorical task variables were created, using

the method recommended by Pedhazur (1997). Roadway condition was represented by a single value (1

vs. -1), whereas two vectors for vehicle-automation were created, with the value of each vector coded as

1, 0, or -1. The interaction term was constructed as the product vector of the roadway and vehicle-

automation vectors. These values were then individually used as predictors in each hierarchical multiple

regression.

For the three DSSQ factors as criteria, predictors were entered in four steps. The first step entered

the appropriate DSSQ pre-task score (worry, task engagement, or distress). This variable was entered

first to control for individual differences in initial state that may have carried over post-task. Next, the

roadway and vehicle-automation vectors were entered, followed by the effect-coded vectors for the

roadway × vehicle-automation interaction. In the fourth step of the regression, the DSI factors were

entered into the equation.

 51

The regression of worry indicated that the only significant predictor of post-task worry was its

pre-task levels, F (1, 118) = 135.20, p < .05, standardized beta = .73. Regression of post-task task

engagement indicated that significant predictors included pre-task task engagement and DSI aggression, F

(11, 108) = 7.49, p < .05, standardized betas = .47 and -.17 respectively. Regression of post-task distress

indicated that significant predictors included pre-task distress, dislike of driving, and fatigue proneness, F

(11, 108) = 5.64, p < .05, standardized betas = .36, .17, and .20 respectively. The outcomes of these

regressions indicated that the DSI factors provide moderate additional predictive power to estimates of

post-task subjective state. Summaries of the results for each regression equation are displayed in Table 4.

Complete summaries of all regressions are presented in Appendix D.

Predictors of Driver Performance

To assess the impact of the DSSQ and DSI factors on driver performance, a second series of

hierarchical multiple regressions was calculated. The aim of these regressions was to assess the predictive

power of these factors with task variables controlled. For these analyses, an overall mean index of driver

performance for each of the performance variables recorded by the simulator (mean and SD of lateral

position, longitudinal speed, and steering wheel rate) was determined for each experimental condition

across periods 1, 3, 5, and 7. These values, plus the number of correct pedestrian detections and

concomitant mean reaction times were then individually used as criteria in four-step hierarchical multiple

regressions. As in previous analyses, the continuous-automation condition was excluded from regressions

related to lateral and longitudinal vehicle control. The four steps, entered successively, into these

regression equations were: 1) the effect-coded vectors for roadway and vehicle-automation conditions, 2)

their interaction, 3) the linear terms for the three post-task DSSQ factors, and 4) the linear terms for the

five DSI factors. Summaries of the results for each regression equation are shown in Table 5.

For the mean number of correct pedestrian detections, statistically significant predictors included

roadway condition, vehicle-automation condition, and post-task task engagement, F (8, 111) = 2.93, p <

.05, standardized beta task engagement = .27. Statistically significant predictors of mean correct detection
 52

Table 4
Summary Statistics for Regressions of Post-Task DSSQ State Factors
onto Pre-Task DSSQ State Factors, Roadway and Vehicle-Automation
Conditions, Roadway × Vehicle-Automation Interaction, and DSI Factors.
Criterion: Post-task worry
Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 df F for ∆
1 Pre-task worry .53 .54 1, 118 135.20

Criterion: Post-task task engagement

Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 df F for ∆
1 Pre-task task engagement .31 .31 1, 118 53.71
2 Pre-task task engagement .36 .05 4, 115 15.92
Task variables
3 Pre-task task engagement .37 .01 6, 113 10.99
Task variables
Interaction of task variables
4 Pre-task task engagement .43 .06 11, 108 7.49
Task variables
Interaction of task variables
DSI factors

Criterion: Post-task distress

Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 df F for ∆
1 Pre-task task distress .25 .25 1, 118 39.59
2 Pre-task task distress .27 .02 4, 115 10.44
Task variables
3 Pre-task task distress .28 .01 6, 113 7.45
Task variables
Interaction of task variables
4 Pre-task task distress .37 .09 11, 108 5.64
Task variables
Interaction of task variables
DSI factors

reaction time were roadway condition and DSI thrill seeking, F (13, 106) = 1.87, p < .05, standardized

beta thrill seeking = -.30. For the mean SD of steering wheel rate, statistically significant predictors included

roadway condition and post-task task engagement, F (6, 73) = 90.01, p < .05, standardized beta task

engagement = -.13.

For the mean lateral position, mean longitudinal speed, and mean SD of longitudinal speed the

regression results did not reveal any statistically significant predictors (all p > .05). For the mean SD of
 53

lateral position and the mean steering wheel rate the only statistically significant predictor was roadway

condition, F (2, 77) = 44.42 and 346.14 respectively, both p < .05. The outcomes of these regressions are

broadly consistent with the previously reported ANOVA results, and support the moderate additional

predictive power of DSSQ and DSI factors in estimates of driver performance.

Table 5
Summary Statistics for Regressions of Performance Variables onto
Roadway and Vehicle-Automation Conditions, Roadway × Vehicle-
Automation Interaction, Post-Task DSSQ State Factors, and DSI
Factors.
Criterion: Correct Pedestrian Task Detections
Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 df F for ∆
1 Task variables .07 .07 3, 116 3.10
2 Task variables .08 .01 5, 114 2.08
Interaction of task variables
3 Task variables .17 .09 8, 111 2.93
Interaction of task variables
Post-task DSSQ factors

Criterion: Mean Pedestrian Task Detection Reaction Time

Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 df F for ∆
1 Task variables .07 .07 3, 116 3.00
2 Task variables .07 .00 5, 114 1.78
Interaction of task variables
3 Task variables .07 .00 8, 111 1.10
Interaction of task variables
Post-task DSSQ factors
4 Task variables .19 .12 13, 106 1.87
Interaction of task variables
Post-task DSSQ factors
DSI factors

Criterion: Mean Lateral Position

Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 df F for ∆
1 No significant predictors

Criterion: Mean SD of Lateral Position

Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 df F for ∆
1 Task variables .07 .07 2, 77 3.00
 54

Table 5 (continued)
Criterion: Mean Longitudinal Speed
Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 df F for ∆
1 No significant predictors

Criterion: Mean SD of Longitudinal Speed

Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 df F for ∆
1 No significant predictors

Criterion: Mean Steering Wheel Rate

Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 df F for ∆
1 Task variables .90 .90 2, 77 346.14

Criterion: Mean SD of Steering Wheel Rate

Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 df F for ∆
1 Task variables .87 .87 2, 77 246.91
2 Task variables .87 .00 3, 76 164.18
Interaction of task variables
3 Task variables .88 .01 6, 73 90.01
Interaction of task variables
Post-task DSSQ factors
 55

CHAPTER 4

Discussion

The present study was designed to investigate the validity of the resource and effort-regulation

models as foundations for understanding driver performance as affected by automation, drive difficulty,

workload transitions, and subjective state. It was initially predicted that automation would tend to

improve indices of driver performance and hazard monitoring detections, and reduce subjective ratings of

workload. It was also predicted that exposure to difficult driving circumstances (i.e., curved roadways)

would impair driver performance and hazard detection, and increase subjective workload. Differing

predictions regarding the interactive effects of automation, drive difficulty, and workload transitions on

indices of driver performance and hazard monitoring were made based on resource and effort-regulation

models. Resource theory predicted that driver performance and hazard detection would be best under

conditions that minimize drive difficulty and exposure to workload transitions (i.e., in the straight roads

continuous-automation condition) and worst under conditions that impose continuous levels of high task

demand (i.e., in the curved roadway manual condition). By contrast, effort-regulation theory predicted

that driver performance and hazard monitoring would be best under conditions that required continuous

task-directed effort (i.e., in the curved roadway manual condition), and poorest under conditions that

facilitated a misperception of the effort required and which minimize task-directed effort (i.e., in the

straight roadway intermittent-automation condition).

In addition, it was predicted that the five DSI factors would be predictive of post-task subjective

state and indices of task performance (Matthews et al., 1998). It was also predicted that task engagement

should relate to superior driver performance, and worry would relate to driver performance impairments.

Overall, the results of the current experiment tended to support predictions from a resource-based

account of driver performance, as drivers displayed decrements in vehicle control on several indices of

performance across the experimental drive (e.g., drivers demonstrated greater variation in lateral position,

longitudinal speed, and steering wheel rates over the duration of the experimental drive), and greater

impairments were associated with the curved roadway condition.

 56

As predicted, automated vehicle control was found to facilitate driver performance on the

secondary pedestrian monitoring task. However, these benefits were only observed in the continuous-

automation condition, and over the course of the experimental drive, detections declined to levels similar

to those observed in the manual condition. By contrast, periods of automated control did not significantly

impact detection performance in the intermittent-automation condition (positively or negatively).

Contrary to initial prediction, access to automation also did not reduce workload relative to manual

driving; repeated transitions between manual and automated control were associated with increased driver

workload.

As predicted, drive difficulty did impair driver performance on several indices (e.g., variability in

lateral position, longitudinal speed, and steering wheel inputs) and was related to increased workload.

Results concerning workload transitions were more consistent with a resource-based model of automation

effects, in that performance impairments were generally transient, infrequent, and more pronounced in the

curved roadway condition.

Hypotheses concerning individual difference factors were reasonably supported. The observed

relationships between personality (indexed by DSI factors), subjective state (indexed by the DSSQ), and

driver performance indices were generally consistent with prediction from the transactional model of

driver stress (Matthews, 2001, 2002). Several DSI factors were found to be significant predictors of post-

task driver mood and driver performance. Task engagement was found to relate to superior performance

on the secondary hazard monitoring task and to improved vehicle control (as indexed by steering

variability). Worry did not significantly impact driver performance in this experiment.

Next, the effects of automation, drive difficulty, and workload transitions, and subjective state on

driver performance and perceived workload will be discussed in greater detail. The role of individual

difference factors and the human factors implications of the results will also be discussed.
 57

Vehicle Automation Effects

Driver performance. The observed effects of automation in this experiment were generally

consistent with a resource-based model of driver performance. Initially, vehicle automation in the

continuous-automation condition improved driver performance on the pedestrian monitoring task, and

improved detection reaction time in the more difficult curved roadway condition. However, these effects

were transient, as performance benefits declined across the experimental drive. The decrement in

performance on the pedestrian task may have represented an inability of participants to maintain effective

resource allocation or the loss of resources necessary for task performance. These results support

predictions from resource theory in that declines in task performance over time are often cited as evidence

of resource shortfalls on tasks requiring sustained attention (e.g., Parasuraman, Warm, & Dember, 1987).

Performance on the pedestrian task in the intermittent-automation condition did not improve

under automated vehicle control, which may also be interpreted as supporting a resource-based model.

Drivers in the intermittent-automation condition may have expended significant resources during periods

of manual task performance, resulting in resource shortfalls during intervals of automated vehicle control.

Similar performance effects have been observed in vigilance research following an abrupt decline in task

demands (e.g., Gluckman et al., 1993; Ungar et al., 2005). Such shortfalls may have reduced or eliminated

any positive effects that automated vehicle control would have had on driver performance relative to

manual control.

Automated vehicle control did improve driver performance in the areas it directly influenced. The

automation employed in this experiment operated perfectly, in that the system was 100% reliable, and

made no errors in lateral and longitudinal control (i.e., the vehicle did not deviate from the center of the

driver’s lane, and vehicle speed was a constant 35 mph). These results tend to support one of the chief

reasons for automating driver tasks: improved driver safety (e.g., Stanton & Marsden, 1996; Walker et al.,

2001). To the extent that future vehicle automation systems can perform similarly to the automation in the

current experiment, it may be expected to correspondingly improve driver safety, though this may be

exceptionally difficult to achieve under ‘real world’ circumstances.

 58

Driver workload. Automated control in this experiment did not achieve another key reason cited

for the introduction of automation technologies into vehicles: reduced driver workload (e.g., Stanton &

Marsden, 1996; Walker et al., 2001). Participants in the continuous-automation condition reported similar

levels of workload to that of the manual condition. In addition, participants in the intermittent-automation

condition reported higher workload levels than either of the other two vehicle-automation conditions.

These results support the assertion that automation may not reduce mental workload, but may instead

allocate it to other tasks (Parasuraman, Mouloua, Molloy, & Hilburn, 1996; Reinartz & Gruppe, 1993;

Stanton & Marsden, 1996; Stanton & Young, 2000).

Two potential explanations may account for the workload levels reported by participants across

vehicle-automation conditions. First, the observed similarities in workload between the manual and

continuous-automation conditions may be due to drivers’ level of skill. Young and Stanton (2007) argued

that the effects of automation on driver workload may be moderated by drivers’ skills and experiences,

with diminishing benefits as drivers approach automaticity. Young and Stanton found that a sample of

‘expert’ drivers, selected on the basis of their years of licensure, experienced no reduction in workload

associated with automated vehicle control. Young and Stanton argued that the expert drivers in their

sample had sufficient task experience such that lateral and longitudinal vehicle control contributed little to

their estimates of workload. Though the mean number of years as a licensed driver was fewer for

participants in the current experiment compared to the sample of expert drivers recruited by Young and

Stanton (their sample mean was approximately seven years), participants’ estimated mean number of

miles driven annually in the current experiment exceeded the rate reported by Young and Stanton’s expert

drivers (their sample reported driving approximately 5500 miles per year). The net result may be that

drivers in the current experiment had developed their skills sufficiently that little of their reported

workload was due to vehicular control, a situation analogous to that reported by Young and Stanton

(2007). Instead, participants’ ratings of workload in the current experiment may reflect aspects of driving

that were unrelated to vehicle control, such as monitoring the roadway for pedestrian hazards. As noted

by Young and Stanton (2007; see also, Harms, 1991; Groeger & Clegg, 1997), driving tasks such as
 59

hazard monitoring may be too variable for automaticity to develop, and so these elements continue to

require conscious, effortful control. In other words, the observed similarities in workload between

vehicle-automation conditions may reflect the skill of drivers in the current experiment, coupled with

aspects of the driving task that were analogous across conditions, such as hazard monitoring.

Secondly, the increased workload observed in the intermittent-automation condition, relative to

the manual and continuous-automation conditions, may indicate that abrupt shifts in task demands

required drivers to dynamically recruit or reallocate resources associated with task performance (Huey &

Wickens, 1993). As driver performance was similar in the manual and intermittent-automation conditions

(e.g., on indices of manual driving performance, error rates, correct pedestrian detections, etc.), the

increased workload experienced by participants in the intermittent-automation condition may also reflect

greater effort required to maintain task performance across control transitions. Drivers may have adopted

task strategies that were suitable under manual vehicle control, but which were insufficient or

inappropriate under automated control, and vice versa. Following a transition in vehicle control, drivers

would then be required to shift strategies, and all associated processes (e.g., attention, task directed effort,

scanning patterns, etc.), to continue task performance. This effect may have been compounded by the

frequency and short duration of shifts in vehicular control experienced by participants in the intermittent-

automation condition, resulting in the increased workload ratings observed.

Drive Difficulty

Driver performance. Driver performance under manual control in the current experiment was

substantially poorer in the curved roadway condition compared to the straight condition. Participants

exhibited impaired control on several indices of performance (e.g., variation in lateral position,

longitudinal speed, and steering wheel inputs, increased lane deviations, etc.), suggesting that exposure to

the curved condition may have affected some general resource, rather than a single critical process. In

addition, participants in the curved roadway condition initially drove at slower speeds, which may

indicate that drivers attempted to compensate for increased task difficulty by driving slowly, a relatively
 60

frequently observed strategy in the driving research literature (e.g., Horrey & Simons, 2007). Overall,

these results support the growing body of research literature linking difficult driving environments and

poor driver performance (see Kantowitz & Simsek, 2001, for a partial review of the literature). These

results also tend to support a resource-based account of driver performance as decrements in task

performance with increments in task difficulty have been cited as indicants of capacity limitations (e.g.,

Matthews et al., 2000).

Driver workload. Though not statistically significant, an observed trend within the data suggested

that workload levels were greater in the curved roadway condition compared to the straight condition.

That there was not a larger difference in workload ratings between roadway conditions, given the

previously mentioned performance differences, is somewhat counterintuitive. Two potential explanations

may account for the observed similarities in workload.

First, as suggested by Young and Stanton (2007), the sample of drivers in the current experiment

may have been sufficiently skilled that differences in drive difficulty did not influence their estimates of

workload. In other words, drivers in the current experiment may have been partially insulated against

increased workload in the curved roadway condition by their well developed driving skills. This

explanation is somewhat less than satisfactory, however, in that driver skill did not prevent drivers from

exhibiting poorer vehicle control in the curved condition.

Alternatively, as suggested by Singleton (1989), the observed similarities in workload may be due

to a shift or breakdown in task strategy for participants in the curved roadway condition. Participants may

have adopted (or allowed, in the sense of a strategy breakdown) a task strategy that minimized workload

by accepting increased variability, and consequently error, in vehicle control. This may represent a

questionable, but legitimate task strategy in the context of the current experiment. During the

experimental drive, other traffic was not present on the roadway, nor were law enforcement officers.

Therefore, the potential consequences of poor vehicle control may have been diminished, and

concomitantly the incentive to adopt such a strategy, as a form of workload regulation, was increased. In
 61

other words, given the traffic conditions in the experimental drive, the benefits of workload reduction

may have outweighed the costs of poor vehicle control.

Workload Transition Effects

Driver performance. The effects of workload transitions on driver performance in the current

experiment were more complex than initially hypothesized. Transition effects were more evident in the

curved roadway condition, exhibited in the tendency for drivers in the continuous- and intermittent-

automation conditions to commit lane deviations following a transition, and in the increased variability in

lateral position displayed by drivers in the intermittent-automation condition (though only during the

transition from period 2 to period 3). Across roadway conditions, participants in the continuous-

automation condition also exhibited increased variability in steering. More generally, the effects of

workload transitions observed in the current experiment were related to lateral, rather than longitudinal,

vehicle control, an effect that is consistent with the assertions of Young and Stanton (2002a, 2004, 2007)

that lateral control is more demanding than longitudinal control. In addition, consistent with effects

reported by Scallen et al. (1995), the duration of transition-related control disruptions displayed in the

current experiment were relatively short, lasting approximately 15 seconds.

However, the observed effects of workload transitions on driver performance were somewhat

inconsistent across vehicle-automation conditions, and across transition instances. Drivers in the

continuous-automation condition exhibited increased variability in steering following transition, while

drivers in the intermittent-automation condition displayed increased variability in lateral position. These

differences may be reflective of disparities in resource availability between conditions as a result of

duration of automated control. As discussed previously, participants in the intermittent-automation

condition experienced higher workload than did participants in the continuous-automation condition. The

relatively long period of single-task performance under automated vehicle control in the continuous-

automation condition may have allowed participants to successfully recover resources (Gluckman et al.,

1993) or to complete resource reallocation (Huey & Wickens, 1993). Following transition from
 62

automated to manual vehicle control, increased resource availability in the continuous-automation

condition may have allowed participants to make a more effortful attempt at maintaining vehicle control

during the transition (i.e., increased steering inputs to preserve lateral control), compared to a less

effortful solution in the intermittent-automation condition (i.e., increased lateral variation as a result of

unchanged steering inputs).

Observed differences in driver performance across transition periods in the intermittent-

automation condition may be due to a simple learning effect, as further experience with the task allowed

drivers to successfully manage subsequent control transitions. Alternatively, it may represent a shift in

task strategy, as described previously. Participants may have adapted their post-transition performance

strategies to include acceptance of a short-term increase in driver errors, compensated for by maintenance

of variability in lateral position and steering inputs. Determination of which explanation better accounts

for the observed effect may represent an area of fruitful future research.

Overall, the observed effects of workload transitions in the current experiment tend to support a

resource-based account of driver performance. Superficially, these effects may seem to support an effort-

regulation model, in that one possible interpretation of the observed increase in lateral variability and

associated driver errors following a control transition is that drivers misperceived the effort required for

successful task performance. However, a key assertion of the effort-regulation model is that the

misperception of effort required for task performance is inversely related to the perceived task demands

of the situation. In driving, this effect has been observed more frequently in conjunction with less

demanding straight roads, as opposed to relatively more demanding curved roads (Matthews, 1996;

Matthews & Desmond, 2002). However, the negative effects of workload transitions in the current

experiment were observed, virtually exclusively, in the curved roadway condition, consistent with

predictions from a resource-based account.

Finally, one outcome of the current experiment that is of potential concern results from the

number of moving violations observed following workload transitions in the continuous- and intermittent-

automation conditions. The overall number of moving violations observed during this experiment was
 63

relatively low (i.e., approximately 8% of participants committed such an error), and nearly equally

divided across vehicle-automation conditions. However, the preponderance of major violations observed

in the continuous- and intermittent-automation conditions occurred in conjunction with a transition from

automated to manual vehicle control. In addition, control transitions were associated with increased

incidents of lane deviations, particularly in the curved roadway condition. This suggests that future

workload transitions associated with the proposed vehicle automation systems outlined previously may

present substantial safety implications for drivers. Furthermore, these risks are likely to be compounded

by difficult roadway conditions, such as curved roads, poor weather conditions, snarled traffic, etc.

Clearly, manufacturers of future vehicle automation technologies will need to carefully consider the

circumstances under which control transitions will be permitted to take place.

Driver workload. Frequent transitions from manual to automated vehicle control, and vice versa,

appeared to negatively impact driver workload. Explanations for this effect are consistent with previously

presented arguments concerning vehicle automation and workload.

Individual Differences

The current experiment addressed two issues related to individual differences – the prediction of

subjective states of stress during vehicle operation, and prediction of performance. Analysis of the

individual differences data indicated that both pre- and post-task worry were significantly correlated with

the DSI factors of aggression and thrill seeking, and pre-task with fatigue proneness. Pre- and post-task

task engagement were significantly correlated with dislike of driving, hazard monitoring, and fatigue

proneness, and post-task with aggression. Pre- and post-task distress were significantly correlated with

dislike of driving and fatigue proneness, and pre-task with thrill seeking. The observed correlations

between the DSI factors and post-task worry, task engagement, and distress are generally consistent with

previous experiments (e.g., Matthews et al., 1997; Matthews & Desmond, 2002). Such results further

reinforce the need to consider these personality factors when conducting driver research.
 64

The multiple regressions conducted in this experiment to investigate the additional predictive

power of the DSI personality factors indicated that these factors added significantly to prediction of post-

task state, but they were less predictive of driver performance. DSI aggression was negatively related to

post-task task engagement, and dislike of driving and fatigue proneness were related to increased post-

task distress. These results are broadly consistent with previous experiments (e.g., Matthews et al., 1997;

Matthews & Desmond, 2002).

DSI thrill seeking was related to faster reaction times on the pedestrian monitoring task. The

positive effects of the DSI factor of thrill seeking observed in this experiment are consistent with other

research indicating that this personality factor may actually lead to better on-road performance, in some

respects, although thrill-seeking is also linked to risky driving strategies and accident risk (Matthews et

al., 1997). The negative effects of dislike of driving and fatigue proneness on subjective state found in the

current study have also been established previously (Matthews et al., 1997).

The multiple regressions concerning the predictive power of the DSSQ state factors of driver

performance indicated that post-task task engagement was related to improved performance on the

pedestrian monitoring task and to improved vehicle control (as indexed by reduced steering variability).

These facilitative effects underscore the dependent relationship between task engagement and difficult,

attentionally demanding tasks, which has been demonstrated in studies using various tasks requiring

sustained attention, such as vigilance (Matthews & Davies, 1998). This finding provides further evidence

for the role of resource availability as an influence on performance, provided that the task imposes a high

workload.

Contrary to initial predictions, worry was not found to adversely affect driver performance in the

current experiment. However, this may be due to the overall difficulty of the driving task employed in this

experiment. Worry is comprised of self-focused attention, low self esteem, and task-relevant and task-

irrelevant cognitive interference (Matthews et al., 1999). Participants in all conditions may have been

forced by task demands to remain focused on performing the task, limiting the time and resources they

could devote to internal self-examination. This, in turn, may have resulted in an overall decrease in worry
 65

for all participants. This argument is supported by the findings of Matthews, Campbell et al. (2002), who

also found that a highly demanding, time-pressured working memory task induced a substantial decrease

in post-task worry, and by Funke et al. (2007) who found a comparable decrease in worry associated with

driving tasks similar to those employed in the current study.

Conclusions and Human Factors Implications

Broadly, the results of this experiment support previous research indicating the utility of a

resource-based model of driver performance (e.g., Funke et al., 2007; Kantowitz & Simsek, 2001). The

observed facilitative effects of automated vehicle control in this experiment offer some hope that future

in-vehicle automation of vehicle control will indeed aid driver performance, though the degree of aid

drivers experience may be moderated by roadway environment and driver skill.

The results of this experiment also highlight the need for governmental organizations responsible

for road safety, such as the Department of Transportation, and manufacturers of automated vehicle

technologies to collaborate on guidelines for acceptable transitions in vehicle control. The negative

impact of workload transitions on driver safety observed in this experiment seems to favor infrequent

transitions which occur under tightly controlled circumstances. In this respect, proposed IVHS systems

may be superior to commercial automation endeavors because governments may regulate the construction

of highway on- and off-ramps. Ideally, exit-ramps designed for transitions from automated to manual

vehicle control would be straight and long, with generous road-shoulders bounded by guard-rails to

prevent drivers from exiting the roadway.

Alternatively, it may be preferable for vehicle control transitions to occur when the vehicle is in a

parked state. This may be a superior solution to the problem of control transitions, in that drivers could

resume control when they were adequately prepared, rather than having to adjust to vehicle control while

driving. This solution also favors an IVHS system, in that normal street driving may not provide drivers

with an adequate, and perhaps immediate, stopping location when a control transition is required.

Conversely, highway rest stops may provide ideal locations for control transitions to take place. As
 66

automated vehicle technologies become more proliferate, state governments may be motivated to increase

the availability of rest stops in response.

It must also be noted that the automation employed in this experiment was involuntary. That is,

participants had no control over either the type of automation they experienced or when the automation

was activated. As Parasuraman and Riley (1997) point out, deliberations over when to activate automation

may impose additional cognitive workload over and above that already required by a task. In addition,

automated vehicle control reflects only one type and level of automation; findings might be substantially

different for other vehicle functions that may be automated (cf., Young & Stanton, 2004) and for other

levels of automated aiding (cf., Lee, 2006; Parasuraman et al., 2000).

This study also illustrates the need to consider the influence of individual difference factors on

driver behavior. This need may be particularly relevant in the domain of driver personnel selection, where

employees must be selected based on their driving competence and on their safety records. The

personality traits measured by the DSI may be particularly pertinent to this selection process, as those

traits represent stable, dispositional characteristics that may substantially impact driver performance,

particularly in stressful driving situations (Matthews, 2001). The usefulness of such measures has already

been demonstrated by studies showing that the DSI is predictive of real-world frequencies of accident

involvement and of convictions for driving offences (e.g. Matthews et al., 1997). By incorporating

measures such as the DSI into employee screening processes, safe candidates may be more easily

selected, while less suitable employees are screened out. Furthermore, the results illustrate the need to

evaluate in-vehicle automated devices in drivers of differing personalities and subjective states. For

example, the association between task engagement and better pedestrian detection implies that fatigued

drivers may be vulnerable to a potentially dangerous loss of awareness of hazards during automated

driving.

In sum, the implications of the current study for driving-focused research are clear. Automated

vehicle control is steadily becoming a viable technology. However, the potential human factors

consequences of these alterations to vehicle control have yet to be thoroughly investigated. Such
 67

proliferation without the necessary research to establish its safety may result in accidents, injuries, and

negative economic ramifications for both consumers and manufacturers. Due to the initial, exploratory

nature of the current experiment, and the potential ubiquity of future automation technologies, continued

research on these topics is vital.

 68

REFERENCES

Anderson, J.R. (1995). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (4th ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman

and Co.

Ashley, S. (2001). Driving the info highway. Scientific American, 285, 52-58.

Cox-Fuenzalida, L.E. (2007). Effect of workload history on task performance. Human Factors, 49, 277-

291.

Cox-Fuenzalida, L.E., Beeler, C., & Sohl, L. (2006). Workload history effects: A comparison of sudden

increases and decreases on performance. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning,

Personality, Social, 25, 8-14.

Desmond, P.A., Hancock, P.A., & Monette, J.L. (1998). Fatigue and automation-induced impairments in

simulated driving performance. Transportation Research Record, 1628, 8-14.

de Waard, D., van der Hulst, M., Hoedemaeker, M., & Brookhuis, K.A. (1999). Driver behavior in an

emergency situation in the automated highway system. Transportation Human Factors, 1, 67-82.

Dzindolet, M.T., Peterson, S.A., Pomranky, R.A., Pierce, L.G., & Beck, H.P. (2003). The role of trust in

automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 697-718.

Dzindolet, M.T., Pierce, L.G., Beck, H.P., Dawe, L.A., & Anderson, B.W. (2001). Predicting misuse and

disuse of combat identification systems. Military Psychology, 13, 147–164.

Endsley, M.R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37,

32-64.

Fitts, P.M. (1962). Factors in complex skill training. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training research and education.

Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. [Reprinted, 1990. In M. Venturino (Ed.), Selected

reading in human factors (pp. 275-296. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.]

Funke, G.J., Matthews, G., Warm, J.S., & Emo, A.K. (2007). Vehicle automation: A remedy for driver

stress? Ergonomics, 50, 1302-1323.

Gluckman, J.P., Warm, J.S., Dember, W.N., & Rosa, R.R. (1993). Demand transitions and sustained

attention. The Journal of General Psychology, 120, 323-337.

 69

Groeger, J.A., & Clegg, B.A. (1997). Automaticity and driving: Time to change gear? In T. Rothengatter

& E. Carbonell Vaya (Eds.), Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.

137–146). Oxford: Pergamon.

Hancock, P. A., & Parasuraman, R. (1992). Human factors and safety in the design of intelligent vehicle-

highway systems (IVHS). Journal of Safety Research, 23, 181-198.

Hancock, P. A., & Warm, J. S. (1989). A dynamic model of stress and sustained attention. Human

Factors, 31, 519-537.

Harms, L. (1986). Drivers’ attentional responses to environmental variations: A dual-task real traffic

study. In A. G. Gale, M. H. Freeman, C. M. Haslegrave, P. Smith, & S. P. Taylor (Eds.), Vision in

vehicles (pp. 131-138). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Harms, L. (1991). Variation in drivers’ cognitive load: Effects of driving through village areas and rural

junctions. Ergonomics, 34, 151–160.

Hart, S.G., & Bartolussi, M.R. (1984). Pilot errors as a source of workload. Human Factors, 26, 545-556.

Hart, S.G., & Staveland, L.E. (1988). Development of a multi-dimensional workload scale: Results of

empirical and theoretical research. In P.A. Hancock and N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental

workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Helton, W.S., Shaw, T.H., Warm, J.S., Matthews, G., Dember, W.N., & Hancock, P.A. (2004). Demand

transitions in vigilance: Effects on performance efficiency and stress. In D.A. Vincenzi, M.

Mouloua., & P.A. Hancock (Eds.), Human performance, situation awareness and automation: Current

research and trends (pp. 258- 262). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hockey, G.R.J. (1993). Cognitive-energetical control mechanisms in the management of work demands

and psychological health. In A.D. Baddeley & L. Weiskrantz (Eds.), Attention: Selection,

Awareness and Control (pp. 36-52). Oxford, UK: Clarendon.

Hockey, G.R.J. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and

high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology, 45, 73-93.

Horrey, W.J., & Simons, D.J. (2007). Examining cognitive interference and adaptive safety behaviours in
 70

tactical vehicle control. Ergonomics, 50, 1340-1350.

Horrey, W.J., & Wickens, C.D. (2004). Driving and side task performance: The effects of display clutter,

separation, and modality. Human Factors, 46, 611–624.

Houser, A., Pierowicz, J., & Fuglewicz, D. (2005). Concept of operations and voluntary operational

requirements for lane departure warning system (LDWS) on-board commercial motor vehicles

(Report No. FMCSA-MCRR-05-005). Washington, DC: Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration.

Huey, B.M., & Wickens, C.D. (1993). Workload transition: Implications for individual and team

performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Intelligent Vehicle Highway Safety Act of 2004, H.R. 4931, 108th Cong. (2004).

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, H.R. 2950, 102nd Cong. (1991) (enacted).

Kantowitz, B. H., & Simsek, O. (2001). Secondary-task measures of driver workload. In P.A. Hancock &

P.A. Desmond (Eds.), Stress, workload, and fatigue (pp. 133-163). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kirk, R.E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). New York:

Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Kranz, R. (2006). Not all premium features will go mainstream. Retrieved August 19, 2007, from

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060605/SUB/60601051

Lajunen, T., & Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality and skill and safety-motive

dimensions in drivers' self-assessments. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 307-318.

Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.

Lee, J.D. (2006). Human factors and ergonomics in automation design. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook

of Human Factors and Ergonomics (pp. 1570-1596). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Lee, J. D., & Moray, N. (1992). Trust, control strategies, and allocation of function in human-machine

systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243-1270.

Ma, R., & Kaber, D.B. (2007). Situation awareness and driving performance in a simulated navigation

task. Ergonomics, 50, 1351-1364.

 71

Madhavan, P., Wiegmann, D.A., & Lacson, F.C. (2006). Automation failures on tasks easily performed

by operators undermine trust in automated aids. Human Factors, 48, 241-256.

Matthews, G. (1996). Individual differences in driver stress and performance. Proceedings of the Human

Factors Ergonomics Society, 40, 579–583.

Matthews, G. (2001). A transactional model of driver stress. In P. A. Hancock & P. A. Desmond (Eds.),

Stress, workload, and fatigue (pp. 133-163). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Matthews, G. (2002). Towards a transactional ergonomics for driver stress and fatigue. Theoretical Issues

in Ergonomic Science, 3, 195-211.

Matthews, G., Campbell, S.E., Desmond, P.A., Huggins, J., Falconer, S., & Joyner, A (1999). Assessment

of task-induced state change: Stress, fatigue and workload components. In M. Scerbo (Ed.),

Automation technology and human performance: Current research and trends (pp. 199-203).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Matthews, G., Campbell, S.E., Falconer, S., Joyner, L.A., Huggins, J., Gilliland, K., Grier, R., & Warm,

J.S. (2002). Fundamental dimensions of subjective state in performance settings: Task

engagement, distress, and worry. Emotion, 2, 315–340.

Matthews, G., & Davies, D.R. (1998). Arousal and vigilance: The role of task factors. In R.R. Hoffman,

M.F. Sherrick, & J.S. Warm (Eds.), Viewing psychology as a whole: The integrative science of

William N. Dember (pp. 113-144). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Matthews, G., Davies, D.R., Westerman, S.J., & Stammers, R.B. (2000). Human perfomance: Cognition,

stress and individual differences. Hove, England: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.

Matthews, G., & Desmond, PA (2002). Task-induced fatigue states and simulated driving performance.

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 659-686.

Matthews, G., Desmond, P. A., Joyner, L. A., & Carcary, B. (1997). A comprehensive questionnaire

measure of driver stress and affect. In E. Carbonell-Vaya & J. A. Rothengatter (Eds.), Traffic and

transport psychology: Theory and application (pp. 317-326). Amsterdam: Pergamon Press.

Matthews, G., Dorn, L., & Glendon, A. I. (1991). Personality correlates of driver stress. Personality and
 72

Individual Differences, 12, 535-549.

Matthews, G., Tsuda, A., Xin, G., & Ozeki, Y. (1999) Individual differences in driver stress vulnerability

in a Japanese sample. Ergonomics, 42, 401-415.

May, P., Molloy, R., & Parasuraman, R. (1993). Effects of automation reliability and failure rate on

monitoring performance in a multitask environment. Proceedings of the Human Factors and

Ergonomics Society, 37, 1112-1116.

Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model

comparison perspective (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Moray, N. (1979). Mental workload: Its theory and measurement. New York: Plenum.

Neuman, T. R. (1992). Roadway geometric design. In J. L. Pline (Ed.), Traffic engineering hand-book,

4th ed.(pp. 154-203). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nilsson, L. (1995). Safety effects of adaptive cruise control in critical traffic situations. Proceedings of

the World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, 2, 1254-1259.

Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. G. (1975). On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cognitive

Psychology, 7, 44-64.

Owens, D. A., Helmers, G., & Sivak, M. (1993). Intelligent vehicle highway systems: A call for user-

centered design. Ergonomics, 36, 363-369.

Parasuraman, R. (2000). Designing automation for human use: Empirical studies and quantitative models.

Ergonomics, 43, 931–951.

Parasuraman, R., Mouloua, M., & Molloy, R. (1996). Effects of adaptive task allocation on monitoring of

automated systems. Human Factors, 38, 665-679.

Parasuraman, R., Mouloua, M., Molloy, R., & Hilburn, B (1996). Monitoring of automated systems. In R.

Parasuraman & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and

applications (pp. 91-115). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, and abuse. Human

Factors, 39, 230-253.

 73

Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B., & Wickens, C.D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human

interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics -Part A:

Systems and Humans, 30, 286-297.

Parasuraman, R., Warm, J.S., & Dember, W.N. (1987). Vigilance: Taxonomy and utility. In L.S. Mark,

J.S. Warm, & R.L. Huston (Eds.), Ergonomics and human factors: Recent research. New York:

Springer Verlag.

Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Harcourt College

Publishers.

Reinartz, S. J., & Gruppe, T. R. (April, 1993). Information requirements to support operator-automatic

co-operation. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Nuclear Safety Conference, London.

Scallen, S.F., Hancock, P.A., & Duley, J.A. (1995). Pilot performance and preference for short cycles of

automation in adaptive function allocation. Applied Ergonomics, 26, 397-403.

Schneider, W. & Shiffrin, R.M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I.

Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.

Sheridan, T.B. (1997). Supervisory control. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors (pp.

1295-1327). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Shiffrin, R.M. & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II.

Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–

190.

Singleton, W. T. (1989). The mind at work: Psychological ergonomics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Stanton, N.A., & Marsden, P. (1996). From fly-by-wire to drive-by-wire: Safety implications of

automation in vehicles. Safety Science, 24, 35-49.

Stanton, N.A., & Young, M.S. (2000). A proposed psychological model of driving. Theoretical Issues in

Ergonomic Science, 1, 315-331.

Stanton, N.A., & Young, M.S. (2005). Driver behaviour with adaptive cruise control. Ergonomics, 48,
 74

1294-1313.

Stanton, N.A., Young, M., & McCaulder, B. (1997). Drive-by-wire: The case of driver workload and

reclaiming control with adaptive cruise control. Safety Science, 27, 149-159.

Stanton, N.A., Young, M.S., Walker, G.H., Turner, H., & Randle, S. (2001). Automating the driver’s

control tasks. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 5, 221-236.

Tsang, P.S., & Wickens, C.D. (1988). The structural constraints and strategic control of resource

allocation. Human Performance, 1, 45-72.

Ungar, N.R., Matthews, G., Warm, J.S., Dember, W.N., Thomas, J.K., Finomore, V.S., & Shaw, T.H.

(2005). Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 49, 1523-1526.

Vanderwerp, D. (2006). 2007 Lexus LS460: Road tests. Retrieved August 19, 2007, from

http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/11601/2007-lexus-ls460.html

Walker, G.H., Stanton, N.A., & Young, M.S. (2001) Where is computing driving cars? International

Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 203-229.

Welford, A. T. (1978). Mental work-load as a function of demand, capacity, strategy and skill.

Ergonomics, 21, 151-167.

Wickens, C., & Hollands, J. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Wiener, E. L. (1985). Beyond the sterile cockpit. Human Factors, 27, 75-90.

Wiener, E. L. (1989). Human factors of advanced technology (“glass cockpit”) transport aircraft (Rep.

177528). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

Wiesenfelder, J. (2006). The Lexus LS460: It really does park itself. Retrieved August 19, 2007, from

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2006/09/ls_460_parking.html

Young, M.S., & Stanton, N.A. (2002a). Attention and automation: New perspectives on mental underload

and performance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 3, 178-194.

Young, M.S., & Stanton, N.A. (2002b). Malleable attentional resources theory: A new explanation for the

effects of mental underload on performance. Human Factors, 44, 365-375.

 75

Young, M.S., & Stanton, N.A. (2004). Taking the load off: Investigations of how adaptive cruise control

affects mental workload. Ergonomics, 47, 1014-1035.

Young, M.S., & Stanton, N.A. (2007). What’s skill got to do with it? Vehicle automation and driver

mental workload. Ergonomics, 50, 1324-1339.

 76

APPENDIX A

Participant Drive Instructions

Manual Condition
Read these instructions to the participant before the practice phase of the experiment:
“This is an experiment designed to investigate the effects of new automated technologies on
driver performance. It is important that you drive normally, as you would in everyday life. Please observe
the 35 mph speed limit throughout all phases of the experiment. This is not a video game, and you should
not treat it as such.
This practice phase of the experiment is 15 minutes long and is broken into 2 parts. In the first
part of the practice, you will simply be learning to control the simulator. If a crash occurs while you are
driving, the simulator will position your car back on the road and you will be able to resume driving.
During the second part of the practice, you will be given the opportunity to practice a hazard
monitoring task which you will be required to perform later. In this part of the practice phase, pedestrians
will be lined up on both sides of the roadway. Occasionally, one of these pedestrians may begin to walk
into the roadway. Your task is to watch for these potential road hazards and indicate with the paddles on
the wheel [BE SURE TO SHOW THE PARTICIPANTS THE PADDLES NOW] when you observe a
moving pedestrian by depressing the right paddle for a moving pedestrian on the right side of the road, or
by depressing the left paddle for a moving pedestrian on the left side of the road. Make sure that you fully
depress the paddle when you observe a moving pedestrian or the simulator may not record your response.
The appearance of pedestrians in the practice phase will be signaled by a series of orange barrels
appearing on the right and left sides of the roadway. When you observe orange barrels on the side of the
road, get ready to begin the hazard monitoring task.
You may ask the experimenter any questions during the practice run. However, the experimenter
will not be able to answer your questions one the test phase of the drive has started.
Are there any questions?”

Read these instructions to the participant before the main phase of the experiment:
“In this phase of the experiment, you will engage in the hazard monitoring task that you practiced
earlier. Again, your task is to watch for pedestrians walking into the roadway and indicate with the wheel
paddles when you observe a moving pedestrian by depressing the right paddle for a moving pedestrian on
the right side of the road, or by depressing the left paddle for a moving pedestrian on the left side of the
road.. Make sure that you fully depress the paddle when you observe a moving pedestrian or the simulator
may not record your response. Unlike the practice phase of the experiment, there will be no orange barrels
to warn you about the appearance of the pedestrians, so you will need to watch for their appearance. If a
crash occurs while you are driving, the simulator will position your car back on the road and you will be
able to resume driving.
You must maintain vehicle control as much as possible during this phase of the experiment. Good
vehicle control includes maintaining the 35 mph speed limit and detecting the moving pedestrian
throughout this phase of the experiment. It is essential to maintain your speed even if you are finding it
difficult to detect the moving pedestrians. Your performance during this phase of the experiment will be
evaluated based on your adherence to all of these requirements.
Please ask any questions you may have now. The experimenter will be unable to answer your
questions once the drive begins.
Are there any questions?”

Continuous-automation and Intermittent-automation Conditions

Read these instructions to the participant before the practice phase of the experiment:
“This is an experiment designed to investigate the effects of new automated technologies on
driver performance. It is important that you drive normally, as you would in everyday life. Please observe
 77

the 35 mph speed limit throughout all phases of the experiment. This is not a video game, and you should
not treat it as such.
This practice phase of the experiment is 15 minutes long and is broken into 3 parts. In the first
part of the practice, you will simply be learning to control the simulator. If a crash occurs while you are
driving, the simulator will position your car back on the road and you will be able to resume driving.
During the second part of the drive, you will be given the opportunity to practice driving in a
simulation of an experimental, fully automated vehicle. The automation will automatically control your
vehicle’s speed and heading. Because of this, the gas and brake pedals and the steering wheel of the
simulator will not function. When you observe a green star on both sides of the roadway, this is a signal
that the automation is taking control of the vehicle. The automation is not perfect, however, and it may
cease functioning unexpectedly. If this occurs, you will need to reestablish control of the vehicle.
The third part of the practice drive will begin when you observe a red star on both sides of the
roadway. This is a signal that the vehicle will cease automation functions, and return control of the
vehicle to you. You will then be given the opportunity to practice a hazard monitoring task which you
will be required to perform later. In this part of the practice phase, pedestrians will be lined up on both
sides of the roadway. Occasionally, one of these pedestrians may begin to walk into the roadway. Your
task is to watch for these potential road hazards and indicate with the paddles on the wheel [BE SURE TO
SHOW THE PARTICIPANTS THE PADDLES NOW] when you observe a moving pedestrian by
depressing the right paddle for a moving pedestrian on the right side of the road, or by depressing the left
paddle for a moving pedestrian on the left side of the road. Make sure that you fully depress the paddle
when you observe a moving pedestrian or the simulator may not record your response. The appearance of
pedestrians in the practice phase will be signaled by a series of orange barrels appearing on the right and
left sides of the roadway. When you observe orange barrels on the side of the road, get ready to begin the
hazard monitoring task.
You may ask the experimenter any questions during the practice run. However, the experimenter
will not be able to answer your questions one the test phase of the drive has started.
Are there any questions?”

Read these instructions to the participant before the main phase of the experiment:
“In this phase of the experiment, the automation will again periodically control the speed and
heading of your vehicle. When you observe a green star on both sides of the roadway, this is a signal that
the automation is taking control of your vehicle. When you observe a red star on both sides of the
roadway, this is a signal that the automation is returning control of the vehicle to you. Please remember
that the automation is not perfect, and that you may need to reestablish control of the vehicle if the
automation ceases functioning.
In this phase of the experiment, you will engage in the hazard monitoring task that you practiced
earlier. Again, your task is to watch for pedestrians walking into the roadway and indicate with the wheel
paddles when you observe a moving pedestrian by depressing the right paddle for a moving pedestrian on
the right side of the road, or by depressing the left paddle for a moving pedestrian on the left side of the
road.. Make sure that you fully depress the paddle when you observe a moving pedestrian or the simulator
may not record your response. You will engage in the pedestrian monitoring task throughout this phase of
the experiment, including during times when the automation is controlling your vehicle. Unlike the
practice phase of the experiment, there will be no orange barrels to warn you about the appearance of the
pedestrians, so you will need to watch for their appearance. If a crash occurs while you are driving, the
simulator will position your car back on the road and you will be able to resume driving.
You must maintain vehicle control as much as possible as you transition from automated control
to manual control, from manual control to automated control, and as you complete the hazard monitoring
task. Good vehicle control includes maintaining the 35 mph speed limit and detecting the moving
pedestrian throughout this phase of the experiment. It is essential to maintain your speed even if you are
finding it difficult to detect the moving pedestrians. Your performance during this phase of the
experiment will be evaluated based on your adherence to all of these requirements.
 78

Please ask any questions you may have now. The experimenter will be unable to answer your
questions once the drive begins.
Are there any questions?”
 79

APPENDIX B

Description of Driving Simulator Roadway Objects and Events

Practice Drive (Duration of drive: 15.5 minutes)

• Period 1: 0-18480 ft (Duration of drive: 6 minutes)
• Period 2: 18481-30600 ft (Duration of drive: 4 minutes)
• Period 3: 30601-48150 ft (Duration of drive: 5.5 minutes)

Drive Details
• Roadway characteristics
• Period 1
o Speed limit 35 mph (posted every 3050 ft)
o 2 lane road, each lane 12 ft wide, double yellow line
o Shoulder in both lanes 7 ft wide
o Curves every 1120 ft
o 11 ‘normal’ curves, 300 ft in length
o 4 ‘S’ curves, 600 ft in length
• Period 2
o Speed limit 35 mph (posted every 3050 ft)
o 2 lane road, each lane 12 ft wide, double yellow line
o Shoulder in both lanes 7 ft wide
o Curves every 1120 ft
o 6 ‘normal’ curves, 300 ft in length
o 4 ‘S’ curves, 600 ft in length
• Period 3
o Speed limit 35 mph (not posted)
o 2 lane road, each lane 12 ft wide, double yellow line
o Shoulder in both lanes 7 ft wide
o No curved sections

Drive Features
• Period 1
o Buildings and trees are present at both sides of the roadway. The arrangement is
similar to a small city setting.
o No traffic in the period (oncoming or in drivers’ lane)
• Period 2
o Buildings and trees are present at both sides of the roadway. The arrangement is
similar to a small city setting.
o No traffic in the period (oncoming or in drivers’ lane)
o In the continuous-automation and intermittent-automation conditions:
ƒ At 17981 ft, star warning polygons appear 500 ft ahead of driver to signal the
beginning of automated vehicle control.
ƒ Automated vehicle control from 18481-30600 ft.
ƒ At 30100 ft, star warning polygons appear 500 ft ahead of driver to signal the
end of automated vehicle control.
• Period 3
o No traffic in the period (oncoming or in drivers’ lane)
 80

o Orange construction barrels appear (30688-30698 ft) on both sides of the roadway to
alert participants that the third phase is about to begin. Warning barrels consist of
three barrels on each side. Each barrel is separated by 5 ft.
o No buildings appear in Period 3.
o Pedestrian pairs begin to appear on the shoulders of the roadway (30801 ft).
Pedestrians are stationed 7 ft from the roadway. Pedestrian pairs are stationed 200 ft
apart. At 35 mph the pedestrian pairs constituted an event rate of 15 pairs/minute.
ƒ Pedestrian Set 1 (30801-33788 ft). This set of pedestrians was designed to
demonstrate the appearance of the moving pedestrians. This set lasted
approximately 1 minute. During Set 1, there were 12 critical signals (moving
pedestrians, explained below), balanced for side of roadway.
o Transition segment, 1520 ft in length (approximately 30 seconds long at 35 mph).
o Orange construction barrels appear (35308-35318 ft) on both sides of the roadway to
alert participants that the Pedestrian Set 2 is about to begin. Warning barrels consist
of three barrels on each side. Each barrel is separated by 5 ft.
ƒ Pedestrian Set 2 (35421-47678 ft). This set of pedestrians was designed to
give participants practice with the secondary hazard monitoring task under
conditions that were identical to the experimental drive. This set lasted
approximately 4 minutes. During Set 2, there were 8 critical signals, with an
event rate of 2 critical signals/minute. Critical signals were balanced for side
of roadway.

Drive Characteristics
• During Period 3 of the driving task, participants’ secondary task was to monitor the roadway
for potential road hazards. These hazards took the form of pedestrians walking into the
roadway. Positioned on both sides of the roadway, on the shoulder, were the pedestrian pairs
mentioned previously. Occasionally, one of the pedestrians in a pair would begin to walk
toward the roadway (either the right pedestrian, or the left pedestrian in a pair, but not both
simultaneously). It is important to note that these pedestrians were programmed to stop
walking before they crossed into the roadway. So, the pedestrians were potential road
hazards, which participants did not actually have to avoid. Instead, their task was to observe
the moving pedestrians, and indicate that they had observed them by indicating which side of
the roadway the pedestrian was on, using a set of wheel paddles mounted underneath the
steering wheel. Participants were to depress the right paddle for pedestrians on the right side
of the road, and the left paddle for pedestrians on the left side of the road.
• Pedestrians walked at a speed of .2 ft/sec. Through pilot testing, it was determined that
participants’ detection rate of the critical signals was approximately 65%.
• Participants had 5.5 seconds from their appearance to detect moving pedestrians (5 sec before
reaching the pedestrian, and .5 sec as they passed the participant).

Experimental Drive (Duration of drive: 52.3 minutes)

• Pre-task baseline: 0-3580 ft (Duration of drive: 1.15 minute)
• Period 1: 3581-25640 ft (Duration of drive: 7 minutes)
• Period 2: 25641-47700 ft (Duration of drive: 7 minutes)
• Period 3: 47701-69760 ft (Duration of drive: 7 minutes)
• Period 4: 69761-91820 ft (Duration of drive: 7 minutes)
• Period 5: 91821-113880 ft (Duration of drive: 7 minutes)
• Period 6: 113881-135940 ft (Duration of drive: 7 minutes)
• Period 7: 135941-158000 ft (Duration of drive: 7 minutes)
 81

• Post-task baseline: 158001-161080 ft (Duration of drive: 1.15 minute)

Drive Details
• Roadway characteristics
• Straight roadway condition
o 2 lane road, each lane 12 ft wide, double yellow line
o Shoulder in both lanes 7 ft wide
• Curved roadway condition
o 2 lane road, each lane 12 ft wide, double yellow line
o Shoulder in both lanes 7 ft wide
o Curves every 600 ft
ƒ 264 ‘S’ curves, 600 ft in length

Drive Features
• All periods
o Buildings and trees are present at both sides of the roadway. The arrangement is
similar to a small city setting.
o No traffic in the experimental drive (oncoming or in drivers’ lane)
o Pedestrian monitoring task begins at 3580 ft (approximately 1 minute into the
experimental drive at 35 mph). As in Period 3 of the Practice Drive, pedestrians are
stationed 7 ft from the roadway. Pedestrian pairs are stationed 200 ft apart. At 35
mph the pedestrian pairs had an event rate of 15 pairs/minute.
o During the experimental drive there were 98 critical signals. These signals had an
overall event rate of 14 critical signals/period, 2 critical signals/minute. Critical
signals were balanced for side of roadway.
o As in Period 3 of the Practice Phase, participants had 5.5 seconds to detect the
moving pedestrians (5 sec before reaching the pedestrian, and .5 sec while passing
the pedestrian).
• Period 1
o In the continuous-automation condition:
ƒ At 2830 ft, star warning polygons appear 500 ft ahead of driver to signal the
beginning of automated vehicle control.
ƒ Automated vehicle control begins at 3330 ft.
• Period 2
o In the intermittent-automation condition:
ƒ At 25140 ft, star warning polygons appear 500 ft ahead of driver to signal the
beginning of automated vehicle control.
ƒ Automated vehicle control from 25640-30600 ft.
ƒ At 46700 ft, star warning polygons appear 500 ft ahead of driver to signal the
end of automated vehicle control.
• Period 4
o In the intermittent-automation condition:
ƒ At 69260 ft, star warning polygons appear 500 ft ahead of driver to signal the
beginning of automated vehicle control.
ƒ Automated vehicle control from 69760-91320 ft.
ƒ At 90820 ft, star warning polygons appear 500 ft ahead of driver to signal the
end of automated vehicle control.
• Period 6
o In the intermittent-automation condition:
 82

ƒ At 113380 ft, star warning polygons appear 500 ft ahead of driver to signal
the beginning of automated vehicle control.
ƒ Automated vehicle control from 113880-135440 ft.
ƒ At 134940 ft, star warning polygons appear 500 ft ahead of driver to signal
the end of automated vehicle control.
• Period 7
o In the continuous-automation condition:
ƒ At 157500 ft, star warning polygons appear 500 ft ahead of driver to signal
the end of automated vehicle control.
ƒ Automated vehicle control ends at 158000 ft.

Drive Characteristics
• Participants engaged in the pedestrian monitoring task throughout the experimental drive.
Task details are described previously in Drive Features.
 83

APPENDIX C

ANOVA Tables

Note. All subsequently presented df and p values in Appendix C are uncorrected. Differences between
values reported here and in Chapter 3: Results are due to corrections controlling alpha error rates using
the Dunn-Sidak alpha correct, and corrections for violations of the sphericity assumption using Box’s
epsilon.

Table C1
Analysis of Variance of Mean Lateral Position
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 0.24 .624
Vehicle-automation 1 3.31 .073
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 1 0.05 .821
Error 76 (1.077)
Within Groups
Period 3 1.03 .379
Roadway × Period 3 1.85 .138
Vehicle-automation × Period 3 0.29 .835
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Period 3 0.76 .517
Error 228 (.122)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C2
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Lateral Position
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 112.75 .001
Vehicle-automation 1 1.15 .286
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 1 0.91 .344
Error 76 (.481)
Within Groups
Period 3 8.65 .001
Roadway × Period 3 0.97 .408
Vehicle-automation × Period 3 1.65 .178
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Period 3 1.69 .171
Error 228 (.029)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C3
Analysis of Variance of Mean Longitudinal Speed
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 1.43 .236
 84

Table C3 (continued)
Source df F p
Vehicle-automation 1 0.08 .779
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 1 1.18 .281
Error 76 (35.473)
Within Groups
Period 3 13.55 .001
Roadway × Period 3 4.17 .007
Vehicle-automation × Period 3 1.81 .145
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Period 3 1.02 .386
Error 228 (2.864)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C4
Analysis of Variance of Mean Longitudinal Speed in the Straight Roadway Condition
Source df F p
Period 3 2.07 .108
Error 117 (3.355)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C5
Analysis of Variance of Mean Longitudinal Speed in the Curved Roadway Condition
Source df F p
Period 3 17.99 .001
Error 117 (2.434)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C6
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Longitudinal Speed
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 5.44 .022
Vehicle-automation 1 1.85 .178
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 1 0.09 .768
Error 76 (1.413)
Within Groups
Period 3 4.76 .003
Roadway × Period 3 2.29 .079
Vehicle-automation × Period 3 1.22 .304
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Period 3 1.24 .296
Error 228 (.195)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.
 85

Table C7
Analysis of Variance of Mean Steering Wheel Rate
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 790.71 .001
Vehicle-automation 1 0.18 .674
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 1 0.85 .360
Error 76 (.002)
Within Groups
Period 3 4.01 .008
Roadway × Period 3 2.90 .036
Vehicle-automation × Period 3 0.57 .635
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Period 3 0.86 .463
Error 228 (.000)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C8
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Steering Wheel Rate
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 621.08 .001
Vehicle-automation 1 0.006 .941
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 1 0.824 .367
Error 76 (.004)
Within Groups
Period 3 15.73 .001
Roadway × Period 3 15.93 .001
Vehicle-automation × Period 3 1.39 .247
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Period 3 0.65 .582
Error 228 (.000)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C9
Analysis of Variance of Mean Longitudinal Speed in the Curved Roadway Condition
Source df F p
Period 3 9.62 .001
Error 117 (.000)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C10
Analysis of Variance of Mean Longitudinal Speed in the Curved Roadway Condition
Source df F p
Period 3 16.93 .001
Error 117 (.000)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.
 86

Table C11
Analysis of Variance of Percentage of Correct Pedestrian Detections
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 2.86 .094
Vehicle-automation 2 3.19 .045
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 2 0.58 .559
Error 114 (49.03)
Within Groups
Period 6 3.87 .001
Roadway × Period 6 4.82 .001
Vehicle-automation × Period 12 5.29 .001
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Period 12 1.57 .096
Error 684 (4.60)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C12
Analysis of Variance of Percentage of Correct Pedestrian Detections in the Straight Roadway
Condition
Source df F p
Period 6 5.91 .001
Error 354 (4.17)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C13
Analysis of Variance of Percentage of Correct Pedestrian Detections in the Curved Roadway
Condition
Source df F p
Period 6 2.64 .016
Error 354 (5.79)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C14
Analysis of Variance of Percentage of Correct Pedestrian Detections in the Manual Vehicle-
Automation Condition
Source df F p
Period 6 0.628 .708
Error 234 (4.66)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.
 87

Table C15
Analysis of Variance of Percentage of Correct Pedestrian Detections in the Continuous-
Automation Vehicle-Automation Condition
Source df F p
Period 6 11.38 .001
Error 234 (3.80)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C16
Analysis of Variance of Percentage of Correct Pedestrian Detections in the Intermittent-
Automation Vehicle-Automation Condition
Source df F p
Period 6 3.42 .003
Error 234 (5.92)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C17
Analysis of Variance of Mean Reaction Times for Correct Pedestrian Detections
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 3.92 .05
Vehicle-automation 2 2.45 .091
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 2 0.03 .969
Error 108 (.202)
Within Groups
Period 6 5.43 .001
Roadway × Period 6 1.29 .260
Vehicle-automation × Period 12 2.25 .009
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Period 12 2.12 .014
Error 648 (.036)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C18
Analysis of Variance of Mean Reaction Times for Correct Pedestrian Detections in the Straight
Roadway Condition
Source df F p
Between Groups
Vehicle-automation 2 1.38 .260
Error 54 (.176)
Within Groups
Period 6 3.08 .006
Vehicle-automation × Period 12 2.25 .154
Error 324 (.042)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.
 88

Table C19
Analysis of Variance of Mean Reaction Times for Correct Pedestrian Detections in the Curved
Roadway Condition
Source df F p
Between Groups
Vehicle-automation 2 1.13 .332
Error 54 (.227)
Within Groups
Period 6 3.75 .001
Vehicle-automation × Period 12 3.3 .001
Error 324 (.031)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C20
Analysis of Variance of Mean Reaction Times for Correct Pedestrian Detections in the Curved
Roadway Manual Vehicle-Automation Condition
Source df F p
Period 6 2.94 .010
Error 114 (.034)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C21
Analysis of Variance of Mean Reaction Times for Correct Pedestrian Detections in the Curved
Roadway Continuous-Automation Vehicle-Automation Condition
Source df F p
Period 6 12.19 .001
Error 114 (.012)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C22
Analysis of Variance of Mean Reaction Times for Correct Pedestrian Detections in the Curved
Roadway Intermittent-Automation Vehicle-Automation Condition
Source df F p
Period 6 1.40 .224
Error 96 (.049)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C23
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Lateral Position for the Transition from Period 7 to Post-
task Baseline
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 13.93 .001
Vehicle-automation 1 1.81 .183
 89

Table C23 (continued)

Source df F p
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 1 2.79 .100
Error 70 (.375)
Within Groups
Segment 4 1074.66 .001
Roadway × Segment 4 21.59 .001
Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 1.17 .324
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 4.15 .003
Error 280 (.325)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C24
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Lateral Position for the Transition from Period 7 to Post-
task Baseline in the Straight Roadway Condition
Source df F p
Between Groups
Vehicle-automation 1 0.06 .807
Error 35 (.325)
Within Groups
Segment 4 1180.40 .001
Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 1.95 .105
Error 140 (.164)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C25
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Lateral Position for the Transition from Period 7 to Post-
task Baseline in the Curved Roadway Condition
Source df F p
Between Groups
Vehicle-automation 1 4.01 .053
Error 35 (.424)
Within Groups
Segment 4 334.65 .001
Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 2.90 .024
Error 280 (.486)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C26
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Longitudinal Speed for the Transition from Period 7 to
Post-task Baseline
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 5.50 .022
Vehicle-automation 1 0.48 .493
 90

Table C26 (continued)

Source df F p
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 1 0.03 .868
Error 70 (1.226)
Within Groups
Segment 4 18691.83 .001
Roadway × Segment 4 2.06 .086
Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 2.33 .056
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 0.66 .620
Error 280 (.928)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C27
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Steering Wheel Rate for the Transition from Period 7 to
Post-task Baseline
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 26.19 .001
Vehicle-automation 1 0.77 .382
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 1 0.57 .452
Error 70 (.002)
Within Groups
Segment 4 39.45 .001
Roadway × Segment 4 27.58 .001
Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 5.32 .001
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 1.48 .208
Error 280 (.002)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C28
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Steering Wheel Rate for the Transition from Period 7 to
Post-task Baseline in the Manual Vehicle-Automation Condition
Source df F p
Segment 4 23.99 .001
Error 144 (.001)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C29
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Steering Wheel Rate for the Transition from Period 7 to
Post-task Baseline in the Continuous-Automation Vehicle-Automation Condition
Source df F p
Segment 4 15.46 .001
Error 144 (.004)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.
 91

Table C30
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Lateral Position for the Transition from Period 2 to Period 3
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 175.14 .001
Vehicle-automation 1 10.89 .001
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 1 8.88 .004
Error 76 (.591)
Within Groups
Segment 4 9.92 .001
Roadway × Segment 4 10.57 .001
Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 5.27 .001
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 4.95 .001
Error 280 (.272)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C31
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Lateral Position for the Transition from Period 2 to Period 3
in the Straight Roadway Condition
Source df F p
Between Groups
Vehicle-automation 1 0.11 .741
Error 38 (.275)
Within Groups
Segment 4 2.18 .073
Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 0.13 .973
Error 152 (.081)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C32
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Lateral Position for the Transition from Period 2 to Period 3
in the Curved Roadway Condition
Source df F p
Between Groups
Vehicle-automation 1 11.66 .001
Error 38 (.907)
Within Groups
Segment 4 11.64 .001
Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 5.97 .001
Error 152 (.464)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.
 92

Table C33
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Lateral Position for the Transition from Period 2 to Period 3
in the Curved Roadway Manual Vehicle-Automation Condition
Source df F p
Segment 4 7.36 .001
Error 76 (.830)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C34
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Lateral Position for the Transition from Period 2 to Period 3
in the Curved Roadway Intermittent-Automation Vehicle-Automation Condition
Source df F p
Segment 4 8.95 .001
Error 76 (.845)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C35
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Lateral Position for the Transition from Period 4 to Period 5
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 3.41 .069
Vehicle-automation 1 3.00 .087
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 1 3.32 .072
Error 76 (3040.900)
Within Groups
Segment 4 1.36 .249
Roadway × Segment 4 1.28 .276
Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 1.26 .284
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 1.34 .256
Error 304 (1499.450)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C36
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Lateral Position for the Transition from Period 6 to Period 7
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 23.59 .001
Vehicle-automation 1 0.84 .362
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 1 12.40 .001
Error 76 (1.638)
Within Groups
Segment 4 7.75 .001
Roadway × Segment 4 1.53 .194
Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 2.22 .067
 93

Table C36 (continued)

Source df F p
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 1.53 .194
Error 304 (.461)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C37
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Longitudinal Speed for the Transition from Period 2 to
Period 3
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 16.89 .001
Vehicle-automation 1 4.79 .032
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 1 0.07 .791
Error 76 (.480)
Within Groups
Segment 4 20.88 .001
Roadway × Segment 4 0.78 .539
Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 0.84 .502
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 0.61 .658
Error 304 (.232)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C38
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Longitudinal Speed for the Transition from Period 4 to
Period 5
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 0.37 .546
Vehicle-automation 1 0.39 .534
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 1 3.89 .052
Error 76 (6031.181)
Within Groups
Segment 4 2.22 .066
Roadway × Segment 4 0.14 .968
Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 0.15 .963
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 2.22 .067
Error 304 (2622.252)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.
 94

Table C39
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Longitudinal Speed for the Transition from Period 6 to
Period 7
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 0.05 .828
Vehicle-automation 1 2.73 .103
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 1 0.00 .965
Error 76 (1.845)
Within Groups
Segment 4 15.43 .001
Roadway × Segment 4 0.68 .606
Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 4.40 .002
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 1.26 .285
Error 304 (.421)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C40
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Longitudinal Speed for the Transition from Period 6 to
Period 7 in the Manual Vehicle-Automation Condition
Source df F p
Segment 4 12.30 .001
Error 156 (.387)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C41
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Longitudinal Speed for the Transition from Period 6 to
Period 7 in the Intermittent-Automation Vehicle-Automation Condition
Source df F p
Segment 4 7.90 .001
Error 156 (.455)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C42
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Steering Wheel Rate for the Transition from Period 2 to
Period 3
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 844.54 .001
Vehicle-automation 1 0.33 .566
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 1 0.63 .429
Error 76 (.001)
Within Groups
Segment 4 236.68 .001
 95

Table C42 (continued)

Source df F p
Roadway × Segment 4 87.77 .001
Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 1.91 .109
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 0.81 .521
Error 304 (.000)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C41
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Steering Wheel Rate for the Transition from Period 4 to
Period 5
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 0.37 .545
Vehicle-automation 1 0.35 .553
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 1 3.88 .053
Error 76 (5645.657)
Within Groups
Segment 4 2.21 .068
Roadway × Segment 4 0.14 .968
Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 0.14 .967
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 2.22 .067
Error 304 (2496.938)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C42
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Steering Wheel Rate for the Transition from Period 6 to
Period 7
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 886.61 .001
Vehicle-automation 1 0.06 .812
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 1 0.40 .528
Error 75 (.001)
Within Groups
Segment 4 192.16 .001
Roadway × Segment 4 69.96 .001
Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 0.77 .546
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 3.02 .018
Error 300 (.000)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.
 96

Table C43
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Steering Wheel Rate for the Transition from Period 6 to
Period 7 in the Straight Roadway Condition
Source df F p
Between Groups
Vehicle-automation 1 0.18 .674
Error 38 (.001)
Within Groups
Segment 4 52.16 .001
Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 5.36 .001
Error 152 (.000)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C44
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Steering Wheel Rate for the Transition from Period 6 to
Period 7 in the Curved Roadway Condition
Source df F p
Between Groups
Vehicle-automation 1 0.24 .628
Error 38 (.002)
Within Groups
Segment 4 143.40 .001
Vehicle-automation × Segment 4 1.19 .317
Error 152 (.001)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C45
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Steering Wheel Rate for the Transition from Period 6 to
Period 7 in the Straight Roadway Manual Vehicle-Automation Condition
Source df F p
Segment 4 42.86 .001
Error 76 (.000)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C46
Analysis of Variance of Mean SD of Steering Wheel Rate for the Transition from Period 6 to
Period 7 in the Straight Roadway Intermittent-Automation Vehicle-Automation Condition
Source df F p
Segment 4 19.94 .001
Error 76 (.000)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.
 97

Table C47
Analysis of Variance of Mean Pre-task DSSQ Worry Scores
Source df F p
Roadway 1 0.12 .730
Vehicle-automation 2 0.36 .697
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 2 0.11 .895
Error 114 (1.056)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C48
Analysis of Variance of Mean Pre-task DSSQ Task Engagement Scores
Source df F p
Roadway 1 1.82 .180
Vehicle-automation 2 0.75 .475
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 2 2.66 .074
Error 114 (.680)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C49
Analysis of Variance of Mean Pre-task DSSQ Distress Scores
Source df F p
Roadway 1 1.69 .196
Vehicle-automation 2 0.02 .979
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 2 0.28 .754
Error 114 (.680)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C50
Analysis of Variance of Mean DSSQ Worry Scores
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 0.01 .922
Vehicle-automation 2 0.46 .634
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 2 0.10 .908
Error 114 (1.910)
Within Groups
Pre-post Task 1 9.69 .001
Roadway × Pre-post Task 1 0.46 .500
Vehicle-automation × Pre-post Task 2 0.25 .780
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Pre-post Task 2 0.07 .929
Error 114 (.295)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.
 98

Table C51
Analysis of Variance of Mean DSSQ Task Engagement Scores
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 5.45 .021
Vehicle-automation 2 0.537 .586
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 2 3.28 .041
Error 114 (1.216)
Within Groups
Pre-post Task 1 218.26 .001
Roadway × Pre-post Task 1 2.84 .095
Vehicle-automation × Pre-post Task 2 2.13 .124
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Pre-post Task 2 0.73 .483
Error 114 (.352)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C52
Analysis of Variance of Mean DSSQ Distress Scores
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 1.34 .250
Vehicle-automation 2 0.49 .613
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 2 0.68 .510
Error 114 (.957)
Within Groups
Pre-post Task 1 116.95 .001
Roadway × Pre-post Task 1 0.30 .587
Vehicle-automation × Pre-post Task 2 0.95 .391
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Pre-post Task 2 1.15 .319
Error 114 (.318)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.

Table C53
Analysis of Variance of Mean TLX Workload Scores
Source df F p
Between Groups
Roadway 1 3.16 .078
Vehicle-automation 2 3.49 .034
Roadway × Vehicle-automation 2 0.34 .715
Error 114 (1110.555)
Within Groups
Subscale 5 43.13 .001
Roadway × Subscale 5 1.33 .249
Vehicle-automation × Subscale 10 0.90 .534
Roadway × Vehicle-automation × Subscale 10 0.79 .639
 99

Table C53 (continued)

Source df F p
Error 570 (612.271)
Note. Values enclosed in parentheses are mean square errors.
 100

APPENDIX D

Regression Tables

Table D1
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Post-Task Worry
Variable df F for ∆ R2 ∆R2 B SE B β
Step 1 1, 118 135.20 .534 .534
Pre-task worry .762 .065 .731*
Step 2 4, 115 33.47 .538 .004
Pre-task worry .762 .066 .731*
Roadway vector -.046 .066 -.044
Vehicle-automation vector 1 -.056 .094 -.044
Vehicle-automation vector 2 -.003 .094 -.003
Step 3 6, 113 21.97 .538 .000
Pre-task worry .761 .067 .731*
Roadway vector -.046 .067 -.044
Vehicle-automation vector 1 -.056 .095 -.044
Vehicle-automation vector 2 -.003 .095 -.003
Roadway × automation vector 1 -.027 .095 -.021
Roadway × automation vector 2 .027 .095 .021
Step 4 11, 108 11.79 .546 .007
Pre-task worry .801 .080 .769*
Roadway vector -.037 .070 -.035
Vehicle-automation vector 1 -.048 .097 -.037
Vehicle-automation vector 2 -.013 .097 -.010
Roadway × automation vector 1 -.038 .098 -.030
Roadway × automation vector 2 .038 .098 .030
DSI aggression -.003 .005 -.046
DSI dislike of driving .004 .006 .045
DSI hazard monitoring -.001 .006 -.010
DSI thrill seeking .000 .004 -.008
DSI fatigue proneness -.005 .005 -.079
*p < .05

Table D2
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Post-Task Task Engagement
Variable df F for ∆ R2 ∆R2 B SE B β
Step 1 1, 118 53.71 .313 .313
Pre-task task engagement .630 .086 .559*
Step 2 4, 115 15.92 .356 .044
Pre-task task engagement .613 .086 .543*
Roadway vector -.156 .073 -.161*
Vehicle-automation vector 1 .183 .103 .154
Vehicle-automation vector 2 -.109 .104 -.091
Step 3 6, 113 10.99 .369 .012
Pre-task task engagement .596 .088 .528*
 101

Table D2 (continued)
Variable df F for ∆ R2 ∆R2 B SE B β
Roadway vector -.159 .073 -.163*
Vehicle-automation vector 1 .182 .103 .153
Vehicle-automation vector 2 -.106 .104 -.089
Roadway × automation vector 1 -.050 .104 -.042
Roadway × automation vector 2 .150 .103 .126
Step 4 11, 108 7.49 .433 .064
Pre-task task engagement .548 .094 .486*
Roadway vector -.124 .073 -.128
Vehicle-automation vector 1 .191 .100 .160
Vehicle-automation vector 2 -.111 .102 -.093
Roadway × automation vector 1 -.085 .102 -.072
Roadway × automation vector 2 .190 .102 .159
DSI aggression -.010 .005 -.167*
DSI dislike of driving -.010 .007 -.133
DSI hazard monitoring .007 .006 .087
DSI thrill seeking -.004 .004 -.086
DSI fatigue proneness .002 .005 .038
*p < .05

Table D3
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Post-Task
Distress
Variable df F for ∆ R2 ∆R2 B SE B β
Step 1 1, 118 39.59 .251 .251
Pre-task distress .517 .082 .501*
Step 2 4, 115 10.44 .266 .015
Pre-task distress .512 .083 .496*
Roadway vector .001 .065 .001
Vehicle-automation vector 1 -.055 .091 -.055
Vehicle-automation vector 2 -.085 .091 -.086
Step 3 6, 113 7.45 .283 .017
Pre-task distress .508 .083 .492*
Roadway vector .001 .065 .001
Vehicle-automation vector 1 -.055 .091 -.055
Vehicle-automation vector 2 -.086 .091 -.086
Roadway × automation vector 1 -.098 .091 -.099
Roadway × automation vector 2 -.049 .091 -.049
Step 4 11, 108 5.64 .365 .081
Pre-task distress .367 .090 .355*
Roadway vector -.037 .064 -.045
Vehicle-automation vector 1 -.053 .088 -.053
Vehicle-automation vector 2 -.081 .089 -.082
Roadway × automation vector 1 -.055 .089 -.056
Roadway × automation vector 2 -.083 .091 -.084
DSI aggression -.001 .005 -.027
DSI dislike of driving .011 .006 .173*
 102

Table D3 (continued)
Variable df F for ∆ R2 ∆R2 B SE B β
DSI hazard monitoring .000 .005 .006
DSI thrill seeking .006 .003 .148
DSI fatigue proneness .010 .005 .196*
*p < .05

Table D4
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting the Mean Number of Correct Pedestrian
Task Detections
Variable df F for ∆ R2 ∆R2 B SE B β
Step 1 3, 116 3.10 .074 .074
Roadway vector 2.858 1.685 .152
Vehicle-automation vector 1 -4.983 2.383 -.216*
Vehicle-automation vector 2 5.442 2.383 .236*
Step 2 5, 114 2.08 .084 .009
Roadway vector 2.858 1.691 .152
Vehicle-automation vector 1 -4.983 2.392 -.216*
Vehicle-automation vector 2 5.442 2.392 .236*
Roadway × automation vector 1 2.267 2.392 .098
Roadway × automation vector 2 -2.208 2.392 -.096
Step 3 8, 111 2.93 .174 .091
Roadway vector 4.000 1.680 .212*
Vehicle-automation vector 1 -5.883 2.318 -.255*
Vehicle-automation vector 2 5.355 2.316 .232*
Roadway × automation vector 1 1.994 2.307 .086
Roadway × automation vector 2 -3.173 2.339 -.137
Post-task worry -2.460 1.582 -.136
Post-task task engagement 5.242 1.877 .270*
Post-task distress .384 2.157 .016
Step 4 13, 106 2.64 .245 .070
Roadway vector 3.478 1.667 .184*
Vehicle-automation vector 1 -6.408 2.288 -.277*
Vehicle-automation vector 2 5.286 2.289 .229*
Roadway × automation vector 1 2.691 2.284 .116
Roadway × automation vector 2 -4.054 2.359 -.176
Post-task worry -3.308 1.634 -.183*
Post-task task engagement 6.936 1.929 .357*
Post-task distress -.650 2.332 -.028
DSI aggression .184 .118 .155
DSI dislike of driving .198 .153 .129
DSI hazard monitoring -.241 .137 -.159
DSI thrill seeking .093 .089 .107
DSI fatigue proneness -.050 .124 -.041
*p < .05
 103

Table D5
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Mean Pedestrian Task Detection Reaction
Time
Variable df F for ∆ R2 ∆R2 B SE B β
Step 1 3, 116 3.00 .072 .072
Roadway vector -.035 .015 -.205*
Vehicle-automation vector 1 -.009 .022 -.044
Vehicle-automation vector 2 .040 .022 .191
Step 2 5, 114 1.78 .072 .000
Roadway vector -.035 .015 -.205*
Vehicle-automation vector 1 -.009 .022 -.044
Vehicle-automation vector 2 .040 .022 .191
Roadway × automation vector 1 -.001 .022 -.004
Roadway × automation vector 2 .005 .022 .024
Step 3 8, 111 1.10 .073 .001
Roadway vector -.035 .016 -.204*
Vehicle-automation vector 1 -.009 .022 -.044
Vehicle-automation vector 2 .041 .022 .194
Roadway × automation vector 1 -.001 .022 -.002
Roadway × automation vector 2 .005 .023 .025
Post-task worry -.001 .015 -.006
Post-task task engagement .002 .018 .011
Post-task distress .007 .021 .032
Step 4 13, 106 1.87 .186 .113
Roadway vector -.031 .016 -.182*
Vehicle-automation vector 1 -.001 .022 -.005
Vehicle-automation vector 2 .037 .022 .177
Roadway × automation vector 1 -.012 .022 -.056
Roadway × automation vector 2 .018 .022 .086
Post-task worry .014 .015 .082
Post-task task engagement -.010 .018 -.055
Post-task distress .015 .022 .071
DSI aggression -.001 .001 -.115
DSI dislike of driving -.001 .001 -.077
DSI hazard monitoring .001 .001 .080
DSI thrill seeking -.002 .001 -.296*
DSI fatigue proneness .001 .001 .083
*p < .05

Table D6
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Mean Lateral
Position
2
Variable df F for ∆ R ∆R2 B SE B β
Step 1 2, 77 2.37 .058 .058
Roadway vector -.003 .051 -.007
Vehicle-automation vector -.112 .051 -.241*
Step 2 3, 76 1.60 .059 .001
Roadway vector -.003 .052 -.007
 104

Table D6 (continued)
Variable df F for ∆ R2 ∆R2 B SE B β
Vehicle-automation vector -.112 .052 -.241*
Roadway × automation vector -.016 .052 -.035
Step 3 6, 73 1.16 .087 .028
Roadway vector .010 .056 .021
Vehicle-automation vector -.110 .053 -.236*
Roadway × automation vector -.022 .053 -.048
Post-task worry .077 .053 .165
Post-task task engagement .026 .061 .055
Post-task distress -.005 .066 -.010
Step 4 11, 68 0.76 .109 .022
Roadway vector -.001 .058 -.003
Vehicle-automation vector -.111 .055 -.24*
Roadway × automation vector -.019 .055 -.041
Post-task worry .080 .057 .172
Post-task task engagement .036 .064 .075
Post-task distress -.033 .080 -.059
DSI aggression -.003 .004 -.090
DSI dislike of driving .004 .005 .101
DSI hazard monitoring -.003 .004 -.081
DSI thrill seeking .002 .003 .081
DSI fatigue proneness .001 .005 .037
*p < .05

Table D7
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Mean SD of Lateral Position
Variable df F for ∆ R2 ∆R2 B SE B β
Step 1 2, 77 44.42 .536 .536
Roadway vector -.285 .031 -.725*
Vehicle-automation vector -.040 .031 -.102
Step 2 3, 76 29.65 .539 .004
Roadway vector -.285 .031 -.725*
Vehicle-automation vector -.040 .031 -.102
Roadway × automation vector .024 .031 .060
Step 3 6, 73 16.48 .575 .036
Roadway vector -.313 .032 -.796*
Vehicle-automation vector -.029 .031 -.074
Roadway × automation vector .036 .031 .092
Post-task worry -.003 .031 -.007
Post-task task engagement -.085 .035 -.213*
Post-task distress -.009 .038 -.019
Step 4 11, 68 9.30 .601 .026
Roadway vector -.311 .033 -.791*
Vehicle-automation vector -.033 .031 -.084
Roadway × automation vector .039 .031 .099
Post-task worry -.011 .032 -.028
Post-task task engagement -.070 .037 -.174
 105

Table D7 (continued)
Variable df F for ∆ R2 ∆R2 B SE B β
Post-task distress -.006 .045 -.014
DSI aggression .004 .002 .134
DSI dislike of driving .003 .003 .099
DSI hazard monitoring -.002 .003 -.053
DSI thrill seeking .000 .002 .017
DSI fatigue proneness -.002 .003 -.076
*p < .05

Table D8
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Mean Longitudinal
Speed
Variable df F for ∆ R2 ∆R2 B SE B β
Step 1 2, 77 0.47 .012 .012
Roadway vector .273 .286 .108
Vehicle-automation vector -.040 .286 -.016
Step 2 3, 76 0.67 .026 .014
Roadway vector .273 .286 .108
Vehicle-automation vector -.040 .286 -.016
Roadway × automation vector -.298 .286 -.118
Step 3 6, 73 0.87 .067 .041
Roadway vector .278 .307 .110
Vehicle-automation vector .013 .291 .005
Roadway × automation vector -.295 .292 -.117
Post-task worry .506 .291 .199
Post-task task engagement -.049 .333 -.019
Post-task distress .010 .362 .003
Step 4 11, 68 1.21 .163 .097
Roadway vector .275 .305 .109
Vehicle-automation vector -.040 .288 -.016
Roadway × automation vector -.209 .289 -.083
Post-task worry .295 .302 .116
Post-task task engagement .028 .340 .011
Post-task distress -.056 .422 -.019
DSI aggression .014 .022 .077
DSI dislike of driving .039 .027 .195
DSI hazard monitoring -.003 .024 -.017
DSI thrill seeking .034 .015 .288*
DSI fatigue proneness -.012 .024 -.078
*p < .05

Table D9
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Mean SD of Longitudinal
Speed
2
Variable df F for ∆ R ∆R2 B SE B β
Step 1 2, 77 2.99 .072 .072
 106

Table D9 (continued)
Variable df F for ∆ R2 ∆R2 B SE B β
Roadway vector -.154 .064 -.263*
Vehicle-automation vector -.031 .064 -.052
Step 2 3, 76 2.12 .077 .005
Roadway vector -.154 .065 -.263*
Vehicle-automation vector -.031 .065 -.052
Roadway × automation vector -.042 .065 -.072
Step 3 6, 73 1.66 .120 .043
Roadway vector -.186 .069 -.318*
Vehicle-automation vector -.020 .066 -.035
Roadway × automation vector -.034 .066 -.058
Post-task worry .023 .066 .038
Post-task task engagement -.125 .075 -.209
Post-task distress -.090 .082 -.128
Step 4 11, 68 1.36 .180 .060
Roadway vector -.168 .070 -.286*
Vehicle-automation vector -.025 .066 -.043
Roadway × automation vector -.037 .067 -.063
Post-task worry .001 .069 .002
Post-task task engagement -.113 .078 -.189
Post-task distress -.093 .097 -.133
DSI aggression .009 .005 .218
DSI dislike of driving .005 .006 .115
DSI hazard monitoring .005 .005 .103
DSI thrill seeking -.001 .003 -.031
DSI fatigue proneness -.003 .006 -.069
*p < .05

Table D10
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Mean Steering Wheel Rate
Variable df F for ∆ R2 ∆R2 B SE B β
Step 1 2, 77 346.14 .900 .900
Roadway vector -.048 .002 -.948*
Vehicle-automation vector -.001 .002 -.019
Step 2 3, 76 231.10 .901 .001
Roadway vector -.048 .002 -.948*
Vehicle-automation vector -.001 .002 -.019
Roadway × automation vector .002 .002 .036
Step 3 6, 73 119.47 .908 .006
Roadway vector -.050 .002 -.980*
Vehicle-automation vector .000 .002 -.006
Roadway × automation vector .003 .002 .052
Post-task worry -.001 .002 -.020
Post-task task engagement -.004 .002 -.083*
Post-task distress .001 .002 .014
Step 4 11, 68 67.39 .916 .008
Roadway vector -.050 .002 -.978*
 107

Table D10 (continued)

Variable df F for ∆ R2 ∆R2 B SE B β
Vehicle-automation vector .000 .002 -.009
Roadway × automation vector .002 .002 .048
Post-task worry -.001 .002 -.027
Post-task task engagement -.004 .002 -.080
Post-task distress -.002 .003 -.033
DSI aggression .000 .000 .003
DSI dislike of driving .000 .000 .073
DSI hazard monitoring .000 .000 .055
DSI thrill seeking .000 .000 .020
DSI fatigue proneness .000 .000 .046
*p < .05

Table D11
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Mean SD of Steering Wheel
Rate
Variable df F for ∆ R2 ∆R2 B SE B β
Step 1 2, 77 246.91 .865 .865
Roadway vector -.062 .003 -.930*
Vehicle-automation vector .000 .003 -.007
Step 2 3, 76 164.18 .866 .001
Roadway vector -.062 .003 -.930*
Vehicle-automation vector .000 .003 -.007
Roadway × automation vector .002 .003 .035
Step 3 6, 73 90.01 .881 .015
Roadway vector -.065 .003 -.977*
Vehicle-automation vector .001 .003 .008
Roadway × automation vector .004 .003 .057
Post-task worry -.003 .003 -.051
Post-task task engagement -.009 .003 -.126*
Post-task distress .001 .003 .008
Step 4 11, 68 50.73 .891 .010
Roadway vector -.065 .003 -.972*
Vehicle-automation vector .000 .003 .004
Roadway × automation vector .004 .003 .054
Post-task worry -.004 .003 -.064
Post-task task engagement -.008 .003 -.119*
Post-task distress -.003 .004 -.035
DSI aggression .000 .000 .029
DSI dislike of driving .000 .000 .087
DSI hazard monitoring .000 .000 .054
DSI thrill seeking .000 .000 .025
DSI fatigue proneness .000 .000 .028
*p < .05
 108

APPENDIX E

Psychometric Instruments
 109
DSI

Office use only

Please check one box only unless otherwise indicated (do not write in boxes at right margin).

Section A
1. Please state your age in years: ____________

2. Please state your gender: Male Female

3. What is your highest educational achievement?_______________________________________

4. Please state your occupation:__________________________________

5. Please state the year when you obtained your full driving license: ______

6. About how often do you drive nowadays?

Everyday 2-3 days a week About once a week Less often

7. Estimate roughly how many miles you personally have driven in the past year:
Less than 5000 miles 5000-10,000 miles 10,000-15,000 miles
15,000-20,000 miles Over 20,000 miles

8. Do you drive to and from your place of work?

Everyday Most days Occasionally Never

9. Please state which of these types of road you use frequently (check one or more boxes as appropriate):
Freeways Other main roads Urban roads Country roads

10. During the last three years, how many minor road accidents have you been involved in?
(A minor accident is one in which no-one required medical treatment, AND costs of damage to vehicles and property
were less than $800).

Number of minor accidents ____ (if none, write 0)

11. During the last three years, how many major road accidents have you been involved in?
(A major accident is one in which EITHER someone required medical treatment, OR costs of damage to vehicles and property
were greater than $800, or both).

Number of major accidents ____ (if none, write 0)

12. During the last three years, have you ever been convicted for:

(a) Speeding Yes

No

(b) Careless or dangerous driving Yes

No

(c) Driving under influence of Yes

alcohol or drugs No

(d) Other moving violation Yes

- please specify: No
____________________________
 110
Section B

Please answer the following questions on the basis of your usual or typical feelings about driving. Each question asks you to answer
according to how strongly you agree with one or other of two alternative answers. Please read each of the two alternatives carefully
before answering. To answer, mark the horizontal line at the point which expresses your answer most accurately. Be sure to answer all the
questions, even if some of them don't seem to apply to you very well: guess as best you can if need be.

Example: Are you a confident driver?

The more confident you are, the closer to the 'very much' alternative you should mark your cross. If you are quite a confident driver you
would mark it like this:
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Does it worry you to drive in bad weather?

very much | | | | | | | | | not at all
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2. I am disturbed by thoughts of having an accident or the car breaking down
very rarely | | | | | | | | | very often
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3. Do you lose your temper when another driver does something silly?
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4. Do you think you have enough experience and training to deal with risky situations on the road safely?
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5. I find myself worrying about my mistakes and the things I do badly when driving
very rarely | | | | | | | | | very often
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
6. I would like to risk my life as a racing driver
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
7. My driving would be worse than usual in an unfamiliar rental car
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
8. I sometimes like to frighten myself a little while driving
very much | | | | | | | | | not at all
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9. I get a real thrill out of driving fast
very much | | | | | | | | | not at all
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10. I make a point of carefully checking every side road I pass for emerging vehicles
very much | | | | | | | | | not at all
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11. Driving brings out the worst in people
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
12. Do you think it is worthwhile taking risks on the road?
very much | | | | | | | | | not at all
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
13. At times, I feel like I really dislike other drivers who cause problems for me
very much | | | | | | | | | not at all
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
14. Advice on driving from a passenger is generally:
useful | | | | | | | | | unnecessary
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
15. I like to raise my adrenaline levels while driving
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 111
16. It's important to show other drivers that they can't take advantage of you
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
17. Do you feel confident in your ability to avoid an accident?
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
18. Do you usually make an effort to look for potential hazards when driving?
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
19. Other drivers are generally to blame for any difficulties I have on the road
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
20. I would enjoy driving a sports car on a road with no speed-limit
very much | | | | | | | | | not at all
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
21. Do you find it difficult to control your temper when driving?
very much | | | | | | | | | not at all
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
22. When driving on an unfamiliar road do you become more tense than usual?
very much | | | | | | | | | not at all
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
23. I make a special effort to be alert even on roads I know well
very much | | | | | | | | | not at all
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
24. I enjoy the sensation of accelerating rapidly
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
25. If I make a minor mistake when driving, I feel it's something I should be concerned about
very much | | | | | | | | | not at all
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
26. I always keep an eye on parked cars in case somebody gets out of them, or there are pedestrians behind them
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
27. I feel more anxious than usual when I have a passenger in the car
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
28. I become annoyed if another car follows very close behind mine for some distance
very much | | | | | | | | | not at all
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
29. I make an effort to see what's happening on the road a long way ahead of me
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
30. I try very hard to look out for hazards even when it's not strictly necessary
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
31. Are you usually patient during the rush hour?
very much | | | | | | | | | not at all
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
32. When you pass another vehicle do you feel in command of the situation?
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
33. When you pass another vehicle do you feel tense or nervous?
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
34. Does it annoy you to drive behind a slow moving vehicle?
very much | | | | | | | | | not at all
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 112
35. When you're in a hurry, other drivers usually get in your way
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
36. When I come to negotiate a difficult stretch of road, I am on the alert
very much | | | | | | | | | not at all
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
37. Do you feel more anxious than usual when driving in heavy traffic?
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
38. I enjoy cornering at high speed
not at all | | | | | | | | | very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
39. Are you annoyed when the traffic lights change to red when you approach them?
very much | | | | | | | | | not at all
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
40. Does driving usually make you feel aggressive?
very much | | | | | | | | | not at all
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
41. Think about how you feel when you have to drive for several hours, with few or no breaks from driving. How do your feelings change
during the course of the drive?
a) More uncomfortable No change
physically (e.g. headache | | | | | | | | |
or muscle pains) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
b) More drowsy or sleepy No change
| | | | | | | | |
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
c) Maintain speed of reaction Reactions to other
| | | | | | | | | traffic increasingly
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 slow
d) Maintain attention Become increasingly
to road-signs | | | | | | | | | inattentive to
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 road-signs
e) Normal vision Your vision becomes
| | | | | | | | | less clear
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
f) Increasingly difficult Normal judgement
to judge your speed | | | | | | | | | of speed
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
g) Interest in driving does Increasingly bored
not change | | | | | | | | | and fed-up
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
h) Passing becomes No change
increasingly risky | | | | | | | | |
and dangerous 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office use only a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h)
 113

DCQ

These questions are concerned with how you usually deal with driving when it is difficult, stressful or upsetting. Think of those occasions
during the last year when driving was particularly stressful. Perhaps you nearly had an accident, or you were stuck in a traffic jam, or you
had to drive for a long time in poor visibility and heavy traffic. Use your experiences of driving during the last year to indicate how much
you usually engage in the following activities when driving is difficult, stressful or upsetting, by CIRCLING one of the numbers from 0 to
5 to the right of each question.
Not at all Very much
1. Relieved my feelings by taking risks or driving fast 0 1 2 3 4 5
2. Cheered myself up by thinking about things unrelated to the drive 0 1 2 3 4 5
3. Stayed detached or distanced from the situation 0 1 2 3 4 5
4. Tried to make other drivers more aware of me by driving close behind them 0 1 2 3 4 5
5. Wished that I was a more confident and forceful driver 0 1 2 3 4 5
6. Ignored my feelings about the drive 0 1 2 3 4 5
7. Made sure I avoided reckless or impulsive actions 0 1 2 3 4 5
8. Showed other drivers what I thought of them 0 1 2 3 4 5
9. Drove assertively or aggressively 0 1 2 3 4 5
10. Tried to gain something worthwhile from the drive 0 1 2 3 4 5
11. Showed other drivers I was in control of the situation 0 1 2 3 4 5
12. Made an extra effort to drive safely 0 1 2 3 4 5
13. Felt that I was becoming a more experienced driver 0 1 2 3 4 5
14. Made an effort to stay calm and relaxed 0 1 2 3 4 5
15. Swore at other drivers (aloud or silently) 0 1 2 3 4 5
16. Thought about good times I've had 0 1 2 3 4 5
17. Wished that I found driving more enjoyable 0 1 2 3 4 5
18. Made sure I kept a safe distance from the car in front 0 1 2 3 4 5
19. Went on as if nothing had happened 0 1 2 3 4 5
20. Refused to believe that anything unpleasant had happened 0 1 2 3 4 5
21. Told myself there wasn't really any problem 0 1 2 3 4 5
22. Let other drivers know they were at fault 0 1 2 3 4 5
23. Criticized myself for not driving better 0 1 2 3 4 5
24. Thought about the consequences of having an accident 0 1 2 3 4 5
25. Flashed the car lights or used the horn in anger 0 1 2 3 4 5
26. Felt I was learning how to cope with stress 0 1 2 3 4 5
27. Deliberately slowed down when I met a difficult traffic situation or 0 1 2 3 4 5
bad weather
28. Made a special effort to look out for hazards 0 1 2 3 4 5
29. Blamed myself for getting too emotional or upset 0 1 2 3 4 5
30. Concentrated hard on what I had to do next 0 1 2 3 4 5
31. Worried about what I was going to do next 0 1 2 3 4 5
32. Looked on the drive as a useful experience 0 1 2 3 4 5
33. Worried about my shortcomings as a driver 0 1 2 3 4 5
34. Thought about the benefits I would get from making the journey 0 1 2 3 4 5
35. Learnt from my mistakes 0 1 2 3 4 5
 114
PRE-TASK DUNDEE STRESS
STATE QUESTIONNAIRE

General Instructions. This questionnaire is concerned with your feelings and thoughts at the moment. We would like
to build up a detailed picture of your current state of mind, so there are quite a few questions, divided into four
sections. Please answer every question, even if you find it difficult. Answer, as honestly as you can, what is true of
you. Please do not choose a reply just because it seems like the ‘right thing to say’. Your answers will be kept entirely
confidential. Also, be sure to answer according to how you feel AT THE MOMENT. Don’t just put down how you
usually feel. You should try and work quite quickly: there is no need to think very hard about the answers. The first
answer you think of is usually the best.

Before you start, please provide some general information about yourself.

Age............. (years) Sex. M F (Circle one)

Occupation............................................................
If student, state your major...................................
Date today..................... Time of day now..............

16. MOOD STATE

First, there is a list of words which describe people’s moods or feelings. Please indicate how well each word describes
how you feel AT THE MOMENT. For each word, circle the answer from 1 to 4 which best describes your mood.

Definitely Slightly Slightly Definitely

Not Not
1. Happy 1 2 3 4
2. Dissatisfied 1 2 3 4
3. Energetic 1 2 3 4
4. Relaxed 1 2 3 4
5. Alert 1 2 3 4
6. Nervous 1 2 3 4
7. Passive 1 2 3 4
8. Cheerful 1 2 3 4
9. Tense 1 2 3 4
10. Jittery 1 2 3 4
11. Sluggish 1 2 3 4
12. Sorry 1 2 3 4
13. Composed 1 2 3 4
14. Depressed 1 2 3 4
15. Restful 1 2 3 4
16. Vigorous 1 2 3 4
17. Anxious 1 2 3 4
18. Satisfied 1 2 3 4
19. Unenterprising 1 2 3 4
20. Sad 1 2 3 4
21. Calm 1 2 3 4
22. Active 1 2 3 4
23. Contented 1 2 3 4
24. Tired 1 2 3 4
25. Impatient 1 2 3 4
26. Annoyed 1 2 3 4
27. Angry 1 2 3 4
28. Irritated 1 2 3 4
29. Grouchy 1 2 3 4
 115
2. MOTIVATION

Please answer some questions about your attitude to the task you are about to do. Rate your agreement with the
following statements by circling one of the following answers:

Extremely = 4 Very much = 3 Somewhat = 2 A little bit = 1 Not at all = 0

1. I expect the content of the task will be interesting 0 1 2 3 4

2. The only reason to do the task is to get an external reward (e.g. payment) 0 1 2 3 4
3. I would rather spend the time doing the task on something else 0 1 2 3 4
4. I am concerned about not doing as well as I can 0 1 2 3 4
5. I want to perform better than most people do 0 1 2 3 4
6. I will become fed up with the task 0 1 2 3 4
7. I am eager to do well 0 1 2 3 4
8. I would be disappointed if I failed to do well on the task 0 1 2 3 4
9. I am committed to attaining my performance goals 0 1 2 3 4
10. Doing the task is worthwhile 0 1 2 3 4
11. I expect to find the task boring 0 1 2 3 4
12. I feel apathetic about my performance 0 1 2 3 4
13. I want to succeed on the task 0 1 2 3 4
14. The task will bring out my competitive drives 0 1 2 3 4
15. I am motivated to do the task 0 1 2 3 4
 116
3. THINKING STYLE

In this section, we are concerned with your thoughts about yourself: how your mind is working, how confident you
feel, and how well you expect to perform on the task. Below are some statements which may describe your style of
thought RIGHT NOW. Read each one carefully and indicate how true each statement is of your thoughts AT THE
MOMENT. To answer, circle one of the following answers:

Extremely = 4 Very much = 3 Somewhat = 2 A little bit = 1 Not at all = 0

1. I’m trying to figure myself out. 0 1 2 3 4

2. I’m very aware of myself. 0 1 2 3 4
3. I’m reflecting about myself. 0 1 2 3 4
4. I’m daydreaming about myself. 0 1 2 3 4
5. I’m thinking deeply about myself. 0 1 2 3 4
6. I’m attending to my inner feelings. 0 1 2 3 4
7. I’m examining my motives. 0 1 2 3 4
8. I feel that I’m off somewhere watching myself. 0 1 2 3 4
9. I feel confident about my abilities. 0 1 2 3 4
10. I am worried about whether I am regarded as a success or failure. 0 1 2 3 4
11. I feel self-conscious. 0 1 2 3 4
12. I feel as smart as others. 0 1 2 3 4
13. I am worried about what other people think of me. 0 1 2 3 4
14. I feel confident that I understand things. 0 1 2 3 4
15. I feel inferior to others at this moment. 0 1 2 3 4
16. I feel concerned about the impression I am making. 0 1 2 3 4
17. I feel that I have less scholastic ability right now than others. 0 1 2 3 4
18. I am worried about looking foolish. 0 1 2 3 4
19. My attention is directed towards things other than the task. 0 1 2 3 4
20. I am finding physical sensations such as muscular tension distracting. 0 1 2 3 4
21. I expect my performance will be impaired by thoughts irrelevant to the task. 0 1 2 3 4
22. I have too much to think about to be able to concentrate on the task. 0 1 2 3 4
23. My thinking is generally clear and sharp. 0 1 2 3 4
24. I will find it hard to maintain my concentration for more than a short time. 0 1 2 3 4
25. My mind is wandering a great deal. 0 1 2 3 4
26. My thoughts are confused and difficult to control. 0 1 2 3 4
27. I expect to perform proficiently on this task. 0 1 2 3 4
28. Generally, I feel in control of things. 0 1 2 3 4
29. I can handle any difficulties I encounter 0 1 2 3 4
30. I consider myself kilful at the task 0 1 2 3 4
 117
4. THINKING CONTENT

This set of questions concerns the kinds of thoughts that go through people’s heads at particular times, for
example while they are doing some task or activity. Below is a list of thoughts, some of which you might have
had recently. Please indicate roughly how often you had each thought DURING THE LAST TEN MINUTES
or so, by circling a number from the list below.

1= Never 2= Once 3= A few times 4= Often 5= Very often

1. I thought about how I should work more carefully. 1 2 3 4 5

2. I thought about how much time I had left. 1 2 3 4 5
3. I thought about how others have done on this task. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I thought about the difficulty of the problems. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I thought about my level of ability. 1 2 3 4 5
6. I thought about the purpose of the experiment. 1 2 3 4 5
7. I thought about how I would feel if I were told how I performed. 1 2 3 4 5
8. I thought about how often I get confused. 1 2 3 4 5
9. I thought about members of my family. 1 2 3 4 5
10. I thought about something that made me feel guilty. 1 2 3 4 5
11. I thought about personal worries. 1 2 3 4 5
12. I thought about something that made me feel angry. 1 2 3 4 5
13. I thought about something that happened earlier today. 1 2 3 4 5
14. I thought about something that happened in the recent past 1 2 3 4 5
(last few days, but not today).
15. I thought about something that happened in the distant past 1 2 3 4 5
16. I thought about something that might happen in the future. 1 2 3 4 5
 118
POST-TASK DUNDEE STRESS
STATE QUESTIONNAIRE

General Instructions

This questionnaire is concerned with your feelings and thoughts while you were performing the task. We would
like to build up a detailed picture of your current state of mind, so there are quite a few questions, divided into
six sections. Please answer every question, even if you find it difficult. Answer, as honestly as you can, what is
true of you. Please do not choose a reply just because it seems like the 'right thing to say'. Your answers will be
kept entirely confidential. Also, be sure to answer according to how you felt WHILE PERFORMING THE
TASK. Don't just put down how you usually feel. You should try and work quite quickly: there is no need to
think very hard about the answers. The first answer you think of is usually the best.

1. MOOD STATE

First, there is a list of words which describe people's moods or feelings. Please indicate how well each word
describes how you felt WHILE PERFORMING THE TASK. For each word, circle the answer from 1 to 4
which best describes your mood.

Definitely Slightly Slightly Definitely

Not Not

1. Happy 1 2 3 4
2. Dissatisfied 1 2 3 4
3. Energetic 1 2 3 4
4. Relaxed 1 2 3 4
5. Alert 1 2 3 4
6. Nervous 1 2 3 4
7. Passive 1 2 3 4
8. Cheerful 1 2 3 4
9. Tense 1 2 3 4
10. Jittery 1 2 3 4
11. Sluggish 1 2 3 4
12. Sorry 1 2 3 4
13. Composed 1 2 3 4
14. Depressed 1 2 3 4
15. Restful 1 2 3 4
16. Vigorous 1 2 3 4
17. Anxious 1 2 3 4
18. Satisfied 1 2 3 4
19. Unenterprising 1 2 3 4
20. Sad 1 2 3 4
21. Calm 1 2 3 4
22. Active 1 2 3 4
23. Contented 1 2 3 4
24. Tired 1 2 3 4
25. Impatient 1 2 3 4
26. Annoyed 1 2 3 4
27. Angry 1 2 3 4
28. Irritated 1 2 3 4
29. Grouchy 1 2 3 4
 119
2. MOTIVATION AND WORKLOAD

Please answer the following questions about your attitude to the task you have just done. Rate your agreement
with the following statements by circling one of the following answers:

Extremely = 4 Very much = 3 Somewhat = 2 A little bit = 1 Not at all = 0

1. The content of the task was interesting 0 1 2 3 4

2. The only reason to do the task is to get an external reward (e.g. payment) 0 1 2 3 4
3. I would rather have spent the time doing the task on something else 0 1 2 3 4
4. I was concerned about not doing as well as I can 0 1 2 3 4
5. I wanted to perform better than most people do 0 1 2 3 4
6. I became fed up with the task 0 1 2 3 4
7. I was eager to do well 0 1 2 3 4
8. I would be disappointed if I failed to do well on this task 0 1 2 3 4
9. I was committed to attaining my performance goals 0 1 2 3 4
10. Doing the task was worthwhile 0 1 2 3 4
11. I found the task boring 0 1 2 3 4
12. I felt apathetic about my performance 0 1 2 3 4
13. I wanted to succeed on the task 0 1 2 3 4
14. The task brought out my competitive drives 0 1 2 3 4
15. I was motivated to do the task 0 1 2 3 4

16. Please rate the MENTAL DEMAND of the task: How much mental and perceptual activity was required?
Low 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 High

17. Please rate the PHYSICAL DEMAND of the task: How much physical activity was required?
Low 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 High

18. Please rate the TEMPORAL DEMAND of the task: How much time pressure did you feel due to the pace at
which the task elements occurred?
Low 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 High

19. Please rate your PERFORMANCE: How successful do you think you were in accomplishing the goals of the
task?
Low 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 High

20. Please rate your EFFORT: How hard did you have to work (mentally and physically) to accomplish your
level of performance?
Low 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 High

21. Please rate your FRUSTRATION: How discouraged, irritated, stressed and annoyed did you feel during the
task?
Low 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 High
 120
3. THINKING STYLE

In this section, we are concerned with your thoughts about yourself: how your mind is working, how confident
you feel, and how well you believed you performed on the task. Below are some statements which may
describe your style of thought during task performance. Read each one carefully and indicate how true each
statement was of your thoughts WHILE PERFORMING THE TASK. To answer circle one of the following
answers: Extremely = 4 Very much = 3 Somewhat = 2 A little bit = 1 Not at all = 0

1. I tried to figure myself out. 0 1 2 3 4

2. I was very aware of myself. 0 1 2 3 4
3. I reflected about myself. 0 1 2 3 4
4. I daydreamed about myself. 0 1 2 3 4
5. I thought deeply about myself. 0 1 2 3 4
6. I attended to my inner feelings. 0 1 2 3 4
7. I examined my motives. 0 1 2 3 4
8. I felt that I was off somewhere watching myself. 0 1 2 3 4
9. I felt confident about my abilities. 0 1 2 3 4
10. I was worried about whether I am regarded as a success or failure. 0 1 2 3 4
11. I felt self-conscious. 0 1 2 3 4
12. I felt as smart as others. 0 1 2 3 4
13. I was worried about what other people think of me. 0 1 2 3 4
14. I felt confident that I understood things. 0 1 2 3 4
15. I felt inferior to others. 0 1 2 3 4
16. I felt concerned about the impression I was making. 0 1 2 3 4
17. I felt that I had less scholastic ability than others. 0 1 2 3 4
18. I was worried about looking foolish. 0 1 2 3 4
19. My attention was directed towards things other than the task. 0 1 2 3 4
20. I found physical sensations such as muscular tension distracting. 0 1 2 3 4
21. My performance was impaired by thoughts irrelevant to the task. 0 1 2 3 4
22. I had too much to think about to be able to concentrate on the task. 0 1 2 3 4
23. My thinking was generally clear and sharp. 0 1 2 3 4
24. I found it hard to maintain my concentration for more than a short time. 0 1 2 3 4
25. My mind wandered a great deal. 0 1 2 3 4
26. My thoughts were confused and difficult to control 0 1 2 3 4
27. I performed proficiently on this task. 0 1 2 3 4
28. Generally, I felt in control of things. 0 1 2 3 4
29. I was able to handle any difficulties I encountered 0 1 2 3 4
30. I consider myself skillful at the task 0 1 2 3 4
 121
4. THINKING CONTENT

This set of questions concerns the kinds of thoughts that go through people's heads at particular times, for
example while they are doing some task or activity. Below is a list of thoughts, some of which you might have
had recently. Please indicate roughly how often you had each thought during THE LAST TEN MINUTES
(while performing the task), by circling a number from the list below.

1= Never 2= Once 3= A few times 4= Often 5= Very often

1. I thought about how I should work more carefully. 1 2 3 4 5

2. I thought about how much time I had left. 1 2 3 4 5
3. I thought about how others have done on this task. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I thought about the difficulty of the problems. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I thought about my level of ability. 1 2 3 4 5
6. I thought about the purpose of the experiment. 1 2 3 4 5
7. I thought about how I would feel if I were told how I performed. 1 2 3 4 5
8. I thought about how often I get confused. 1 2 3 4 5
9. I thought about members of my family. 1 2 3 4 5
10. I thought about something that made me feel guilty. 1 2 3 4 5
11. I thought about personal worries. 1 2 3 4 5
12. I thought about something that made me feel angry. 1 2 3 4 5
13. I thought about something that happened earlier today. 1 2 3 4 5
14. I thought about something that happened in the recent past 1 2 3 4 5
(last few days, but not today).
15. I thought about something that happened in the distant past 1 2 3 4 5
16. I thought about something that might happen in the future. 1 2 3 4 5

5. OPINIONS OF THE TASK

Next, please answer some questions about the task. Please indicate what you thought of the task while you were
performing it. Please try to rate the task itself rather than your personal reactions to it. For each adjective or
sentence circle the appropriate number, on the six point scales provided (where 0 = not at all to 5 = very much
so).

Threatening 0 1 2 3 4 5 Enjoyable 0 1 2 3 4 5
Fearful 0 1 2 3 4 5 Exhilarating 0 1 2 3 4 5
Worrying 0 1 2 3 4 5 Informative 0 1 2 3 4 5
Frightening 0 1 2 3 4 5 Challenging 0 1 2 3 4 5
Terrifying 0 1 2 3 4 5 Stimulating 0 1 2 3 4 5
Hostile 0 1 2 3 4 5 Exciting 0 1 2 3 4 5

The task was a situation:

Which was likely to get out of control 0 1 2 3 4 5

In which you were unsure of how much influence you have 0 1 2 3 4 5
In which somebody else was to blame for difficulties 0 1 2 3 4 5
In which you had to hold back from doing what you really want 0 1 2 3 4 5
Which you could deal with effectively 0 1 2 3 4 5
In which efforts to change the situation tended to make it worse 0 1 2 3 4 5
In which other people made it difficult to deal with the problem 0 1 2 3 4 5
Which was just too much for you to cope with 0 1 2 3 4 5
 122
6. DEALING WITH PROBLEMS

Finally, think about how you dealt with any difficulties or problems which arose while you were performing the
task. Below are listed some options for dealing with problems such as poor performance or negative reactions
to doing the task. Please indicate how much you used each option, specifically as a deliberately chosen way of
dealing with problems. To answer circle one of the following answers:

Extremely = 4 Very much = 3 Somewhat = 2 A little bit = 1 Not at all = 0

I ...

1. Worked out a strategy for successful performance 0 1 2 3 4

2. Worried about what I would do next 0 1 2 3 4
3. Stayed detached or distanced from the situation 0 1 2 3 4
4. Decided to save my efforts for something more worthwhile 0 1 2 3 4
5. Blamed myself for not doing better 0 1 2 3 4
6. Became preoccupied with my problems 0 1 2 3 4
7. Concentrated hard on doing well 0 1 2 3 4
8. Focused my attention on the most important parts of the task 0 1 2 3 4
9. Acted as though the task wasn't important 0 1 2 3 4
10. Didn't take the task too seriously 0 1 2 3 4
11. Wished that I could change what was happening 0 1 2 3 4
12. Blamed myself for not knowing what to do 0 1 2 3 4
13. Worried about my inadequacies 0 1 2 3 4
14. Made every effort to achieve my goals 0 1 2 3 4
15. Blamed myself for becoming too emotional 0 1 2 3 4
16. Was single-minded and determined in my efforts to overcome any problems 0 1 2 3 4
17. Gave up the attempt to do well 0 1 2 3 4
18. Told myself it wasn't worth getting upset 0 1 2 3 4
19. Was careful to avoid mistakes 0 1 2 3 4
20. Did my best to follow the instructions for the task 0 1 2 3 4
21. Decided there was no point in trying to do well 0 1 2 3 4
 123

NASA-TLX

We are interested in the "workload" you experienced during the experiment. Workload is
difficult to define but can be seen as made up of different factors (e.g. physical or mental
components). A set of six rating scales has been developed to evaluate the workload experienced
by an individual during different tasks. Please read the descriptions of the scales carefully. If you
have a question about any of the scales, please ask the experimenter about it. It is extremely
important that they be clear to you. After reading each description, please mark each scale with a
horizontal line at the point which expresses your experiences during the task most accurately.

RATING SCALE DEFINITIONS

Title Endpoints Descriptions

MENTAL DEMAND Low/High How much mental and perceptual activity was
required (e.g., thinking, deciding, calculating,
remembering, looking, searching, etc.)? Was
the task easy or demanding, simple or
complex, exacting or forgiving?

PHYSICAL DEMAND Low/High How much physical activity was required

(e.g., pushing, pulling, turning, controlling,
activating, etc.)? Was the task easy or
demanding, slow or brisk, slack or strenuous,
restful or laborious?

TEMPORAL DEMAND Low/High How much time pressure did you feel due to
the rate or pace at which the tasks or task
elements occurred? Was the pace slow and
leisurely or rapid and frantic?

EFFORT Low/High How hard did you have to work (mentally and
physically) to accomplish this level of
performance?

PERFORMANCE Good/Poor How successful do you think you were in

accomplishing the goals of the task set by the
experimenter (or yourself)? How satisfied
were you with your performance in
accomplishing these goals?

FRUSTRATION Low/High How insecure, discouraged, irritated, stressed

and annoyed versus secure, gratified, content,
relaxed and complacent did you feel during the
task?
 124

Subject I.D.: ___________ Date: _____________

Condition: _______________

NASA TLX (Task Load Index) Rating Scales

Instructions: For each of the scales presented below, please mark each scale with a horizontal line
at the point that matches your experience with the task you just completed. Please note that the
"Performance" scale goes from "good" on the left to "poor" on the right.

Mental Demand Performance

Low High Good Poor

0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
Physical Demand Effort
Low High Low High

0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
Temporal Demand Frustration
Low High Low High

0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100