Advertisement

Mental Workload and Performance Measurements in Driving Task: A Review Literature

  • Totsapon Butmee
  • Terry C. Lansdown
  • Guy H. Walker
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 823)

Abstract

The concept of human mental workload in the field of human factors and psychology has a long history with important applications in the aviation and automotive industries. The main objectives of this literature review are defined the ‘mental workload’ term and determined mental workload measurement methods in driving task. Mental Workload is a complex concept and it is difficult to define this term. It has no a universal accepted definition. Mental workload level cannot be detected directly, however, it has found that relates to limitation of individual internal resources to accomplish the task, and also involves a multi-dimensional variable. Previously, several studies have been indicated that mental workload relate with operators’ performance, task demand and mental resource supply. Extremes (underload or overload) mental workload can degrade operators’ performance. Several assessment methods have been proposed for investigating mental workload. They can be performed in experimental or operational settings. There are seven selection criteria to select the most appropriate methods. These include sensitivity, diagnosticity, intrusiveness, implementation requirement, operator acceptance, selectivity and bandwidth and reliability. Dozens of Mental workload measurement techniques have been developed and categorized into three main groups. (i) Subjective rating, which were categorized into unidimensional and multidimensional. NASA-TLX, SWAT, RSME and MCH are the famous examples of subjective-based techniques. (ii) Performance measures are divided into primary task and secondary task measures. Primary task measures are capable of discriminating the resource competition between individual differences. For example, speed instability, distance headway instability, lateral position from road centerline, lane excursion, time spent out of lane can be widely used to represent the driver primary performances. In secondary task measures are more diagnosticity than primary task measures and subjective measures. Correct response, time response of additional secondary task are a well-known examples of secondary task performance measures in driving research. Additionally, (iii) Physiological techniques also have high sensitivity in measurement, but results from these methods can easily are confounded by other external and extraneous interference. Measures of Eye Functions have been frequently used if compared with other Physiological techniques. It can be argued that the combined methods are recommend cooperatively to predict human mental workload.

Keywords

Mental workload measurements Performance measurements Driving task 

References

  1. 1.
    de Waard D (1996) The measurement of drivers’ mental workload. Groningen University, Traffic Research Center, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paxion J, Galy E, Berthelon C (2014) Mental workload and driving. Front Psychol 5:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marquart G, Cabrall C, de Winter J (2015) Review of eye-related measures of drivers’ mental workload. Procedia Manuf 3:2854–2861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol 52:139–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Donnell RD, Eggemeier FT (1986) Workload assessment methodology. In: Boff KR, Kaufman L, Thomas JP (eds) Handbook of perception and human performance. Cognitive Processes and Performance, vol. 2. John Wiley and Sons, A wiley-interscience publication, United States, pp 42-1–42-49Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Piechullaa W, Mayserb C, Gehrkec H, Königc W (2003) Reducing drivers’ mental workload by means of an adaptive man–machine interface. Transp Res Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav 6(4):233–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Strayer DL, Turrill J, Cooper JM, Coleman JR, Medeiros-Ward N, Biondi F (2015) Assessing cognitive distraction in the automobile. Hum Factors 57(8):1300–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lansdown TC, Brook-Carter N, Kersloot T (2004) Distraction from multiple in-vehicle secondary tasks: vehicle performance and mental workload implications. Ergonomics 47(1):91–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Körber M, Cingel A, Zimmermann M, Bengler K (2015) Vigilance decrement and passive fatigue caused by monotony in automated driving. Procedia Manuf 3:2403–2409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DiDomenico A, Nussbaum MA (2008) Interactive effects of physical and mental workload on subjective workload assessment. Int J Ind Ergon 38(11):977–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Young MS, Brookhuis KA, Wickens CD, Hancock PA (2015) State of science: mental workload in ergonomics. Ergonomics 58(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cain B (2007) A review of the mental workload literature. Defence Research and Development Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Longo L (2015) A defeasible reasoning framework for human mental workload representation and assessment. Behav Inf Technol 34(8):758–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xie B, Salvendy G (2000) Review and reappraisal of modelling and predicting mental workload in single-and multi-task environments. Work Stress 14(1):74–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brookhuis KA, van Driel CJ, Hof T, van Arem B, Hoedemaeker M (2009) Driving with a congestion assistant; mental workload and acceptance. Appl Ergon 40(6):1019–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boer ER (2001) Behavioral entropy as a measure of driving performance. In: Proceedings of the first international driving symposium on human factors in driver assessment, training and vehicle design, pp 225–229Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller S (2001) Workload measures. National Advanced Driving Simulator, Iowa CityGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cantin V, Lavallière M, Simoneaub M, Teasdale N (2009) Mental workload when driving in a simulator: effects of age and driving complexity. Accid Anal Prev 41(4):763–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    da Silva FP (2014) Mental workload, task demand and driving performance: what relation? Procedia Soc Behav Sci 162:310–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cooper GE, Harper Jr, RP (1969) The use of pilot rating in the evaluation of aircraft handling qualities (No. AGARD-567). Advisory Group for aerospace research and development Neuilly-Sur-Seine, FranceGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vidullch MA, Ward GF, Schueren J (1991) Using the subjective workload dominance (SWORD) technique for projective workload assessment. Hum Factors 33(6):677–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zijlstra FRH (1993) Efficiency in work behaviour: a design approach for modern toolsGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reid GB, Nygren TE (1988) The subjective workload assessment technique: a scaling procedure for measuring mental workload. Adv Psychol 52:185–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rehmann AJ (1995) Handbook of human performance measures and crew requirements for flightdeck research (No. CSERIAC-ACT-350). Crew System Ergonomics Information Analysis Center Wright-Patterson AFB OHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ryu K, Myung R (2005) Evaluation of mental workload with a combined measure based on physiological indices during a dual task of tracking and mental arithmetic. Int J Ind Ergon 35(11):991–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Totsapon Butmee
    • 1
  • Terry C. Lansdown
    • 1
  • Guy H. Walker
    • 1
  1. 1.Heriot-Watt UniversityEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations