Evidence Hub

Assessing the physiological effect of non-driving-related task performance and task modality in conditionally automated driving systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis

R. Coyne, Leona Ryan, Mohamed Moustafa, A. Smeaton, Peter Corcoran, J. Walsh

Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2023

14 citations

Abstract

In conditionally automated driving, the driver is free to disengage from controlling the vehicle, but they are expected to resume driving in response to certain situations or events that the system is not equipped to respond to. As the level of vehicle automation increases, drivers often engage in non-driving-related tasks (NDRTs), defined as any secondary task unrelated to the primary task of driving. This engagement can have a detrimental effect on the driver's situation awareness and attentional resources. NDRTs with resource demands that overlap with the driving task, such as visual or manual tasks, may be particularly deleterious. Therefore, monitoring the driver's state is an important safety feature for conditionally automated vehicles, and physiological measures constitute a promising means of doing this. The present systematic review and meta-analysis synthesises findings from 32 studies concerning the effect of NDRTs on drivers' physiological responses, in addition to the effect of NDRTs with a visual or a manual modality. Evidence was found that NDRT engagement led to higher physiological arousal, indicated by increased heart rate, electrodermal activity and a decrease in heart rate variability. There was mixed evidence for an effect of both visual and manual NDRT modalities on all physiological measures. Understanding the relationship between task performance and arousal during automated driving is of critical importance to the development of driver monitoring…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free