Advertisement

Weighing the Importance of Drivers’ Workload Measurement Standardization

  • Eduarda Pereira
  • Susana Costa
  • Nélson Costa
  • Pedro Arezes
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 903)

Abstract

Workload is an inescapable topic within the context of Human-Machine Interaction (HMI). Evolution dictates that HMI systems will be all the more attractive to users the more intuitive they are. While attempting to create an optimized workload management system, the authors have encountered a difficulty in gathering a homogeneous definition of workload and a standardized manner of measuring it. In fact, some researchers even call into question the fact that maybe different things are being discussed. Could it be the underlying cause of many of the HMI failures so far recorded? Either way, the weight this concept carries is too heavy to be dealt lightly. It is very important that standardized strategies for measurement of workload are developed so that, for one, different results can be compared and contribute to a more robust understanding of the concept and that, for two, the measurement of workload is globalized and able to be adapted to all users.

Keywords

Measurement Cognitive workload ADAS Driving Human factors HMI Autonomous vehicles 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by European Structural and Investment Funds in the FEDER component, through the Operational Competitiveness and Internationalization Programme (COMPETE 2020) [Project nº 039334; Funding Reference: POCI-01-0247-FEDER-039334].

References

  1. 1.
    Ahlström, C., Kircher, K., Fors, C., Dukic, T., Patten, C., Anund, A.: Measuring driver impairments: sleepiness, distraction, and workload. EEE PULSE 3, 1–9 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Young, M.S., Birrell, S.A., Stanton, N.A.: Safe driving in a green world: a review of driver performance benchmarks and technologies to support ‘smart’ driving. Appl. Ergon. 42(4), 533–539 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang, Y., Kumada, T.: Relationship between workload and mind-wandering in simulated driving. PLoS One 12(5), e0176962 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Costa, S., Simões, P., Costa, N., Arezes, P.: A Cooperative Human-Machine Interaction Warning Strategy for the Semi-Autonomous Driving Context, 1–7 (2017) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pecchini, D., Roncella, R., Forlani, G., Giuliani, F.: Measuring driving workload of heavy vehicles at roundabouts. Transp. Res. Part F 45, 27–42 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fitzpatrick, K., Chrysler, S., Park, E.S., Nelson, A., Robertson, J., Iragavarapu, V.: Driver Workload at Higher Speeds. FHWA/TX-10/0-5911-1, FHWA (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ba, Y., Zhang, W.: A review of driver mental workload in driver-vehicle-environment system. Internationalization, Design and Global Development (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Foy, H.J., Runham, P., Chapman, P.: Prefrontal cortex activation and young driver behaviour: a fNIRS study. PLoS One 11(5), e0156512 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156512ColquhounCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eggemeier, F.T., Wilson, G.F., Kramer, A.F., Damos, D.L.: General considerations concerning workload assessment in multi-task environments. In: Damos, D.L. (ed.) Multiple Task Performance, pp. 207–216. T&F, London (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Young, M.S., Brookhuis, K.A., Wickens, C.D., Hancock, P.A.: State of science: mental workload in ergonomics. Ergonomics 58, 1–17 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heine, T., Lenis, G., Reichensperger, P., Beran, T., Doessel, O., Deml, B.: Electrocardiographic features for the measurement of drivers’ mental workload. Appl. Ergonomics 61, 31–43 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.12.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hancock, P.A., Desmond, P.A.: Preface. In: Hancock, P.A., Desmond, P.A. (eds.) Stress, Workload, and Fatigue, pp. 13–15. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coughlin, J.F., Reimer, B., Mehler, B.: Driver wellness, safety & the development of an awarecar. Mass Inst. Technol., 1–15 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brookhuis, K.A., de Waard, D.: Monitoring drivers’ mental workload in driving simulators using physiological measures. Accid. Anal. Prev. 42(3), 898–903 (2010). H Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 13-15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lyu, N., Xie, L., Wu, C., Fu, Q., Deng, C.: Ariver’s cognitive workload and driving performance under traffic sign information exposure in complex environments: a case study of the highways in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 14(2), 203 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Waard, D.: The Measurement of Drivers’ Mental Workload. Groningen University, Traffic Research Center, Groningen (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karthaus, M., Wascher, E., Getzmann, S.: Proactive vs. reactive car driving: EEG evidence for different driving strategies of older drivers. PLoS One 13(1), 19–1500 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191500. Omation (pp. 37–46). Springer International PublishingCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pfeffer, S., Decker, P., Maier, T., Stricker, E.: Estimation of operator input and output workload in complex human-machine-systems for usability issues with iFlow. In: Harris D. (eds.) Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. Understanding Human Cognition. EPCE 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8019. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aricò, P., Borghini, G., Di Flumeri, G., Colosimo, A., Pozzi, S., Babiloni, F.: A passive brain–computer interface application for the mental workload assessment on professional air traffic controllers during realistic air traffic control tasks. Prog. Brain Res. 228, 295–328 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814542651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wickens, C.D.: Processing resources and attention. Multiple-task performance, 3–34 (1991)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Platten, F., Schwalm, M., Hülsmann, J., Krems, J.: Analysis of compensative behavior in demanding driving situations. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 26, 38–48 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shakouri, M., Ikuma, L.H., Aghazadeh, F., Nahmens, I.: Analysis of the sensitivity of heart rate variability and subjective workload measures in a driving simulator: the case of highway work zones. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 66, 136–145 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hart, S.G.: Nasa-task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later. Moffett Field, Santa Clara County (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wickens, C.D., Hollands, J.G.: Engineering Psychology and Human Performance (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Horrey, W.J., Lesch, M.F., Garabet, A., Simmons, L., Maikala, R.: Distraction and task engagement: how interesting and boring information impact driving performance and subjective and physiological responses. Appl. Ergon. 58, 342–348 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.07.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Xing, Y., Lv, C., Cao, D., Wang, H., Zhao, Y.: Driver workload estimation using a novel hybrid method of error reduction ratio causality and support vector machine. Measurement 114, 390–397 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    O’Donnell, R.D., Eggemeie, F.T.: Workload assessment methodology. In: Boff, K.R., Kaufman, L., Thomas, J.P. (eds.) Cognitive Processes and Performance. Wiley, Hoboken (1986)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ruscio, D., Caruso, G., Mussone, L., Bordegoni, M.: Eco-driving for the first time: the implications of advanced assisting technologies in supporting pro-environmental changes. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 64, 134–142 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Heine, T., Lenis, G., Reichensperger, P., Beran, T., Doessel, O., Deml, B.: Electrocardiographic features for the measurement of drivers’ mental workload. Appl. Ergon. 61, 31–43 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eggemeier, F.T., Wilson, G.F., Kramer, A.F., Damos, D.L.: Workload assessment in multi-task environments. In: Damos, D.L. (ed.) Multiple Task Performance, pp. 207–216. Taylor & Francis, London (1991)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Teh, E., Jamson, S., Carsten, O., Jamson, H.: Temporal fluctuations in driving demand: The effect of traffic complexity on subjective measures of workload and driving performance. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 22, 207–217 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ronen, A., Yair, N.: The adaptation period to a driving simulator. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 18, 94–106 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rose, J., Bearman, C., Dorrian, J.: The low-event task subjective situation awareness (LETSSA) technique: development and evaluation of a new subjective measure of situation awareness. Appl. Ergon. 68, 273–282 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Di Stasi, L.L., Renner, R., Catena, A., Cañas, J.J., Velichkovsky, B.M., & Pannasch, S.: Towards a driver fatigue test based on the saccadic main sequence: a partial validation by subjective report data. Trans. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 21(1), 122–133 (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hajek, W., Gaponova, I., Fleischer, K.H., & Krems, J.: Workload-adaptive cruise control? A new generation of advanced driver assistance systems. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 20, 108–120 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ko, S.M., Ji, Y.G.: How we can measure the non-driving-task engagement in automated driving: comparing flow experience and workload. Appl. Ergon. 67, 237–245 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Galy, E., Paxion, J., Berthelon, C.: Measuring mental workload with the NASA-TLX needs to examine each dimension rather than relying on the global score: an example with driving. Ergonomics 61(4), 517–527 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2017.1369583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stuiver, A., Brookhuis, K.A., de Waard, D., Mulder, B.: Short-term cardiovascular measures for driver support: increasing sensitivity for detecting changes in mental workload. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 92, 35–41 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    de Rivecourt, M., Kuperus, M.N., Post, W.J., Mulder, L.J.M.: Cardiovascular and eye activity measures as indices for momentary changes in mental effort during simulated flight. Ergonomics 51, 1295–1319 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Baldauf, D., Burgard, E., Wittmann, M.: Time perception as a workload measure in simulated car driving. Appl. Ergon. 40, 929–935 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hart, S.G., Wickens, C.D.: Workload assessment and prediction. In: Booher, H.R. (ed.) An Approach to Systems Integration, pp. 257–296. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eduarda Pereira
    • 1
  • Susana Costa
    • 2
  • Nélson Costa
    • 2
  • Pedro Arezes
    • 2
  1. 1.DPS, School of EngineeringUniversity of MinhoGuimarãesPortugal
  2. 2.ALGORITMI Centre, School of EngineeringUniversity of MinhoGuimarãesPortugal

Personalised recommendations