Does Driving Performance Degrade When Car Drivers Use A Hands-free Mobile Phone - Assignment Example

Name Institution of Affiliation Date Does driving performance degrade when car drivers use a hands-free mobile phone? The dangers of hands-free mobile phone use have been discussed widely in society, thus showing the significance of the phenomenon to the community. This paper gives a synthesis and systematic critique of articles addressing the effect of using a hands-free mobile phone while driving, on the driving performance. A plethora of research has investigated the use of a hands-free mobile phone while driving on its effect on driving performance, with the intent of finding out whether the driving performance is degraded. The review will substantiate the finding by critiquing information on the selected articles by looking at the key features of the study namely:-key issues regarding driving performance, study setting, study participants, experimental procedures, measures, findings, and conclusions made by the authors. To satisfy the requirement s of a rigorous and systematic review, the selected studies will be compared and contrasted with the aim of finding out how these parameters affect the findings of the study, and the reliability and validity of the articles. Amado & Ulipa (2005) investigated the effects of conversing while driving on peripheral detection and attention by comparing the outcome of the driver talking to a sit-in passenger, and conversing on the hand-mobile phone, and a control in which no conversation takes place. Thus, the key issues investigated on driving performance are attention and peripheral detection, dependent on the type of conversation. The experiment was conducted in a simulated environment in which the participants were queried in either low or high complexities in order to replicate the cognitive demands of a conversation. The study involved forty eight college students who took part in all the three conditions of the study using a ‘within-subjects’ design. Findings showed that conversations led to slower reactions and fewer contract responses on tasks depending on attention and peripheral detection as compared situations of ‘no conversation’. However, lack of significant difference between the types of conversations-hands-free phone and passenger was revealed. Moreover, it was found that verbal task implicated performance on the peripheral detection task as opposed to the attention task. It was concluded that conversation afflicts negatively on attention and peripheral detection which are vital driving components as the effect was magnified with difficult-to-do conversations. However, the setting of this study increases the chance for performance bias as an artificial environment does not allow room for simulation. Additionally, the perpetual detection task is of less complexity compared to the actual driving hence limiting the research information that could be gathered from this study. In an almost similar study, Crundall et al., (2005) tested the hypothesis that use of hands-free mobile telephones are a distraction to drivers linked to more accident involvement than in than normal in-care conversation. Visual information processing, situation awareness, and driving demands were the major issues being investigated in relation to driving performance. The experiment was conducted in the field, giving it a more realistic picture of the events as compared to the study setting used by Amado & Ulipa (2005). The setting was a circuit of roads with dual carriageways, urban, suburban, and rural roads in Nottinghamshire, UK. The study participants were twenty, 18 of them being females. The mean age of participants was 25.7 years, and an estimated mean of five years of driving experience after passing the driving test. The study involved two within subject attributes. The first condition of conversation had three levels involving, “in-car conversation, blind-folded in-car conversation, and remote conversation through the cell phone” (p.384). The measures taken include randomly assigning participants in pairs where one takes the driver’s role while the other becomes the conversational accomplice. The procedures involved the participants picking an envelope and discussing the topic in it during a 20 mile circuit. The measures included engaging the driver in the topic during the driving performance including the complex topics. Mobile cell phones were used for the remote-partner situation. A mobile phone cradle with a built-in speakerphone was equipped in each vehicle to ensure a hands-free communication is enabled. Another measure included was placing a video camera assuredly in the back passenger seat of each vehicle, fronting the windshield over the right shoulder of the passenger. The camera was aligned appropriately to provide an enough view of the road ahead. After completion of tasks, results were recorded and the findings revealed that driver-passenger conversations were restrained on the most involving of urban roads for both the driver, and the passenger. On the contrary, conversations on the mobile-phone avoided these suppressions and even triggered the drivers become more verbatim than they would do in a normal passenger talk. A remote mouthpiece on a cell phone has no admittance to the same visual bounty as the driver and hence is less likely to control the talk in accordance to the demands of the roadway. Crundall et al. (2005) concludes that a more potential problem exists when using hands-free phones while driving as compared to when talking to a passenger. These findings slightly vary from that of Amado & Ulipa (2005) who demonstrated that both kinds of conversation impacted concentration depending on the level of difficulty as opposed to the type of conversation. Maciej, Nitsch, & Vollrath (2011) came to more similar findings with Crundall et al., (2005) but strongly emphasize on the fact that driving with passengers causes a decreased risk of accidents. The study gives a similar explanation to Crundall et al. (2005) that a conversation control by passengers in vehicles results to a different conversation pattern which is less detrimental to driving compared to that of talking on the phone. This description contrasts the work of Amado & Ulipa (2005); and Beede & Kass (2006) who came to the conclusion that any kinds of conversation while driving is detrimental to the driving performance. In their study, Maciej, Nitsch, & Vollrath (2011) investigated visual information processing, driving demands and their potential to influence driving performance. The study was conducted in a simulated environment to determine the role of visual data relayed to the passenger. The study used an in a within-subject design to compare the patterns of conversational patterns of 33 drivers and passengers in various settings in-car. These were;-passenger as usual, passenger without front view/passenger without view of the driver (p.520). In addition, these settings were made in comparison to a hands-free phone; and to a hands-free phone with reckoned visual data either about the driver, or the driving incident. Measures taken were instructing the patient to have a small talk with a friend in a natural way. The findings revealed that the speaking behaviour of the driver showed a decrease of verbalizing while driving. The passenger would vary his rhythm of speaking more often and make it shorter as compared to a conversation partner on hands free phone (p.521). According to Maciej, Nitsch, & Vollrath (2011), further analyse showed that similar impact is found when the conversational partner on the other side of the phone is provided with additional visual information, either about the driver or the current situation of driving. In contrast to most studies that warn about the dangers of conversation while driving, Maciej, Nitsch, & Vollrath (2011) conclude that conversation modifying is not motivated by being in the car but by the visual information about the state of the driver and the driving incident (p.525). Beede & Kass (2006) examined tasks that distract cognitive functioning on four categorical measures of driving performance namely traffic violations, maintenance of driving, attention lapses, and response time, for events such as the need to brake. The experiment was conducted in a simulator, reducing the reliability of findings because of reduced reality. The study participants were 36 college students, median six years experience in driving. This enhances validity of data as the test is conducted on experienced drivers. The participants were asked to fill a history questionnaire and conducted four non-natural driving incidences. The procedure involved responding to distraction tasks namely a signal discovery task and participating in a non-natural cell phone conversation as the observers measured driving performance against the named four categories. Performance was evaluated on aspects of speeding, running stop signs, standard deviation of lane position, stops at green lights, and time instantly brake in the event of a pop-up scenario among other measures (Beede & Kass, 2006). The researchers found out that participants were more likely to skip the peripheral cues when they were engaged in the phone conversation. These findings support the body of knowledge on the dangers that drivers put themselves in while engaging in mobile phone conversations and getting distracted. Although the research was restricted to college students with six years of driving experience, it still proposes the lack of attention in drivers whose cognitive functioning is taken by conversations on the phone. Treffner & Barrett (2004) investigated the impact of using a hands-free mobile phone while driving on the driving performance. The issues affecting driving performance being investigated were distraction and inattention to sensory inputs, biomechanical, and perceptual factors and how they are influenced by the hands-free mobile phone use. The specific purpose of the test was to examine whether speaking on a hands-free cell phone affect the driver’s will to control the vehicle as compared to when driving in silence. The research tested the hypotheses that one; “conversing on a mobile phone regardless of the type of conversation will detract from a driver’s ability to control the vehicle as compared to driving in silence”. Two; that “conversation level will differentially minimize a driver’s ability to control the vehicle”; and three, that “driving while engaged in a conversation of categorisation will mostly affect driving” p.231). A simulated environment was used in which model 6-cylinder Holden Commodore VX series with automatic transmission, accelerator and brake depression and power steering wheel among other car components were integrated. A simulated environment often places constraints on the experiment conditions in that participants are aware of being in an experiment and hence may modify behaviour. Moreover, researcher bias is enhanced as the researcher has the power to manipulate the variables under study. Such types of artificial settings can give varying results to similar experiments but conducted in a naturalistic situation. The study involved nine novice drivers holding provisional licenses, and they had average driving experience of nineteen months. The participants’ average age was measured to 18.4 years. These participants volunteered for the study after availing a written informed consent, showing that the researchers adhered to ethical guidelines. The entire procedure involved each participant completing a sequence of driving duties on a closed circuit driving track in an instrumented or simulated vehicle. The action was performed while simultaneously speaking on the mobile cell phone. To stand for the essential elements of driving, three driving tasks were chosen. The tasks were;-cornering, obstacle avoidance, and cornering. The authors provide a vivid description of the study procedure enhancing the comprehensiveness of the article. The procedure explains that on the cornering task, the participants reached a right-hand hairpin corner at 80km per hour in which the driver was expected to brake, turn, and accelerate. The manipulated braking duty simulated stopping just before a stationary car at a set of traffic lights by brake before approach, to stop before a stationary tier of boxes. The measures put in place were to put four different heights of hands-free mobile talk. These differed in complexity and were assessed on these levels. The participants were expected to listen to a side-researcher through an earphone, or microphone attached to the participant’s right ear. The findings of the study revealed that in the three tasks used as measures of driving performance, the perceptual manipulation of action was affected when balanced against a control situation in which the mobile phone conversation was available. During moments of conversation, vital control actions that are relevant to braking were prorogued on arrival to a bend. During simulated braking, for instance, when approaching a stationary car at the traffic light, the level of braking was reduced and the braking mode was modified in a non-optimal manner. During the task involving obstacle avoidance, the car alterations were affected as a result of the conversation. Treffner & Barrett (2004) interpreted the results in accordance to the ecological perspective to perception-action and the affordances theory. It was concluded in the study that the driver’s sensitivity to important information about future incidents and the associated perception and sensitivity of the kind of road environment may both be degraded in a significant manner when using a hands-free mobile phone in simultaneous. In summary, all the articles discussed share the similarity of investigating the imapct of using hands-free mobile phone on driving performance. The studies have been motivated by the increasing debate that holding conversations while driving can have deteriorating impact on the cognitive processing of the driver and hence increase the risk of accidents. It is an interesting body of research that links perception and cognitive functions to bio-mechanical activities such as driving. The studies have mostly looked on perception detection, visual information processing, driving demands, and inattention, among others as aspects that have an impact on driving performance. Whereas Amado & Ulipa (2005); and Beede & Kass (2006) found that any type of conversation is a risk to driving performance, Maciej et al. (2011); and Crundall et al., (2005) found that conversation with a passenger in the car can assist the driver to maintain focus on the road, as the conversation is moderated. Treffner & Barrett (2004) believe that the driving performance can be influenced by any kind of conversation but it entirely depends on the level of conversation and the ability of the driver to coordinate the driving and cognitive functions. This is an interesting research area and future studies should attempt to use design methods of naturalistic orientation. Natural observation might be of assistance to help in understanding of the phenomenon in a real situation. References: Amado, S., & Ulupınar, P (2005). The effects of conversation on attention and peripheral detection: Is talking with a passenger and talking on the cell phone different? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8(6), 383-395. Beede, K.E., & Kass, S.J. (2006). Engrossed in conversation: The impact of cell phones on simulated driving performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38(2), 415-421. Crundall, D., Bains, M., Chapman, P., & Underwood, G. (2005). Regulating conversation during driving: a problem for mobile telephones? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8(3), 197-211. Maciej, J., Nitsch. M., & Vollrath, M. (2011) Conversing while driving: The importance of visual information for conversation modulation. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 14(6), 512-524. Treffner, P.J., & Barrett, R. (2004). Hands-free mobile phone speech while driving degrades coordination and control. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 7(4-5), 229-245. Read More