OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper was to outline an explanatory framework for understanding effects of cognitive load on driving performance and to review the existing experimental literature in the light of this framework. BACKGROUND: Although there is general consensus that taking the eyes off the forward roadway significantly impairs most aspects of driving, the effects of primarily cognitively loading tasks on driving performance are not well understood. METHOD: Based on existing models of driver attention, an explanatory framework was outlined. This framework can be summarized in terms of the cognitive control hypothesis: Cognitive load selectively impairs driving subtasks that rely on cognitive control but leaves automatic performance unaffected. An extensive literature review was conducted wherein existing results were reinterpreted based on the proposed framework. RESULTS: It was demonstrated that the general pattern of experimental results reported in the literature aligns well with the cognitive control hypothesis and that several apparent discrepancies between studies can be reconciled based on the proposed framework. More specifically, performance on nonpracticed or inherently variable tasks, relying on cognitive control, is consistently impaired by cognitive load, whereas the performance on automatized (well-practiced and consistently mapped) tasks is unaffected and sometimes even improved. CONCLUSION: Effects of cognitive load on driving are strongly selective and task dependent. APPLICATION: The present results have important implications for the generalization of results obtained from experimental studies to real-world driving. The proposed framework can also serve to guide future research on the potential causal role of cognitive load in real-world crashes.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper was to outline an explanatory framework for understanding effects of cognitive load on driving performance and to review the existing experimental literature in the light of this framework. BACKGROUND: Although there is general consensus that taking the eyes off the forward roadway significantly impairs most aspects of driving, the effects of primarily cognitively loading tasks on driving performance are not well understood. METHOD: Based on existing models of driver attention, an explanatory framework was outlined. This framework can be summarized in terms of the cognitive control hypothesis: Cognitive load selectively impairs driving subtasks that rely on cognitive control but leaves automatic performance unaffected. An extensive literature review was conducted wherein existing results were reinterpreted based on the proposed framework. RESULTS: It was demonstrated that the general pattern of experimental results reported in the literature aligns well with the cognitive control hypothesis and that several apparent discrepancies between studies can be reconciled based on the proposed framework. More specifically, performance on nonpracticed or inherently variable tasks, relying on cognitive control, is consistently impaired by cognitive load, whereas the performance on automatized (well-practiced and consistently mapped) tasks is unaffected and sometimes even improved. CONCLUSION: Effects of cognitive load on driving are strongly selective and task dependent. APPLICATION: The present results have important implications for the generalization of results obtained from experimental studies to real-world driving. The proposed framework can also serve to guide future research on the potential causal role of cognitive load in real-world crashes.
Keywords:
attentional processes; automatic and controlled processing; cognitive load; distractions and interruptions; dual task; learning; working memory
Authors: Ganesh Sankaranarayanan; Coleman A Odlozil; Katerina O Wells; Steven G Leeds; Sanket Chauhan; James W Fleshman; Daniel B Jones; Suvranu De Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Callum Mole; Jami Pekkanen; William Sheppard; Tyron Louw; Richard Romano; Natasha Merat; Gustav Markkula; Richard Wilkie Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 3.240