Citation

Tuckwell GA, Gupta CC, Vincent GE, Vandelanotte C, Duncan MJ, Ferguson SA. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2024; 202: e107609.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2024, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.aap.2024.107609

PMID

38701560

Abstract

Self-assessed driving ability may differ from actual driving performance, leading to poor calibration (i.e., differences between self-assessed driving ability and actual performance), increased risk of accidents and unsafe driving behaviour. Factors such as sleep restriction and sedentary behaviour can impact driver workload, which influences driver calibration. This study aims to investigate how sleep restriction and prolonged sitting impact driver workload and driver calibration to identify strategies that can lead to safer and better calibrated drivers. Participants (n = 84, mean age = 23.5 ± 4.8, 49 % female) undertook a 7-day laboratory study and were randomly allocated to a condition: sitting 9-h sleep opportunity (Sit9), breaking up sitting 9-h sleep opportunity (Break9), sitting 5-h sleep opportunity (Sit5) and breaking up sitting 5-h sleep opportunity (Break5). Break9 and Break5 conditions completed 3-min of light-intensity walking on a treadmill every 30 min between 09:00-17:00 h, while participants in Sit9 and Sit5 conditions remained seated. Each participant completed a 20-min simulated commute in the morning and afternoon each day and completed subjective assessments of driving ability and perceived workload before and after each commute.

OBJECTIVE driving performance was assessed using a driving simulator measuring speed and lane performance metrics. Driver calibration was analysed using a single component and 3-component Brier Score. Correlational matrices were conducted as an exploratory analysis to understand the strength and direction of the relationship between subjective and objective driving outcomes. Analyses revealed participants in Sit9 and Break9 were significantly better calibrated for lane variability, lane position and safe zone-lane parameters at both time points (p < 0.0001) compared to Sit5 and Break5. Break5 participants were better calibrated for safe zone-speed and combined safe zone parameters (p < 0.0001) and speed variability at both time points (p = 0.005) compared to all other conditions. Analyses revealed lower perceived workload scores at both time points for Sit9 and Break9 participants compared to Sit5 and Break5 (p = <0.001). Breaking up sitting during the day may reduce calibration errors compared to sitting during the day for speed keeping parameters. Future studies should investigate if different physical activity frequency and intensity can reduce calibration errors, and better align a driver's self-assessment with their actual performance.

Language: en

Keywords

Driver calibration; Driving simulator; Fatigue; NASA-TLX; Prolonged sitting; Sleepiness