Differences in Driver Distractibility Between Monolingual ...

1 Differences in Driver Distractibility BetweenMonolingual and Bilingual DriversIsis Chong(&)and Thomas Z. StrybelCenter for Human Factors in Advanced Aeronautics Technologies,Department of Psychology, California State University Long Beach,1250 N Bellflower Blvd, Long Beach, CA 90840, present research sought to bridge the gap Between research ondriver distraction and the bilingual advantage by testing Monolingual and bil-inguals in a driving simulation similar to those encountered by drivers on a dailybasis. The Lane Change Test (LCT) was used to test driving performance in thepresence of a delayed digit recall task (2-back task) and three types of peripheraldetection tasks (PDTs).

2 Although performance came to be degraded as thecomplexity of tasks increased, the overall performance of the bilinguals wasmore negatively affected than their Monolingual counterparts across the LCT,PDT, and 2-back task. Implications and limitations are :Attention Bilingual advantage Driving n-back task Periph-eral detection task1 IntroductionDriver distraction and inattention has become an important factor in road safety, due tothe proliferation of electronic devices and technology in modern automobiles. Con-sequently, drivers are presented with increasing amounts of information that can berelevant or irrelevant to the driving task. This information requires that drivers per-ceive, process, and select appropriate actions for all of the stimuli they encounter.

3 Fromyielding to pedestrians crossing the street to monitoring traffic signals, drivers mustremain alert and vigilant of their surroundings for safe and effective driving. Often,however, drivers face sources of distraction that divert their attention from the drivingtask, which may compromise safety. It is not surprising, therefore, that interest andresearch on Driver Distractibility is increasing. Research has shown that distractionssuch as talking on a cellular device can produce slower reactions to traffic[1] andincreased difficulty processing new information [2]. Another focus of research ondistractibility is how the characteristics of the Driver him or herself influences dis-tractibility.

4 Factors such as Driver experience, age and gender have been shown to affectdriving [3,4], although the results are not straightforward. In the present investigation,we examined another Driver characteristic, bilingualism, on Driver Distractibility ,because previous research has shown Differences Between bilinguals and monolingualson several cognitive tasks. Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015S. Yamamoto (Ed.): HIMI 2015, Part II, LNCS 9173, pp. 180 189, : is the ability to read, write, speak, and understand two or morelanguages [5]. Research suggests that cognitive Differences exist Between bilingualsand their Monolingual counterparts [6]. For example, when compared to monolinguals,bilinguals have shown an increased ability to process verbal and perceptual information[7].

5 They are also more efficient at adjusting their attention tofit changes in thedemands of a task [8 11]. This research has led some to suggest that the ability tofluently speak multiple languages creates a bilingual advantage in terms of betterallocation of one s attentional resources. It is theorized that this advantage stems from abilinguals need to inhibit one language when using another language [7,12].In the preset study, we examined whether the bilingual advantage would affectdriver Distractibility , given the various cognitive demands made on drivers and thepreviously-noted cognitive advantages of bilinguals. Driving performance was mea-sured with a standard Lane Change Test (LCT) and a modified Peripheral DetectionTask (PDT).

6 Typically, the PDT presents a single visual stimulus and the participantmust detect its presence. We varied the PDT tasks to determine whether more eco-logically-valid stimuli would show effects of Distractibility on performance. Partici-pants responded to either the left-right location of the stimulus or its movement. Dualtask driving performance was assessed with a working memory task performedsimultaneously with ParticipantsFifteen college students (8 Monolingual ) ranging from 21 to 31 years of age (M= 24)participated in this study. Nine females and six males participated in this study. Par-ticipants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision, and reported having no knownhearing deficits.

7 All participants were right-handed, had a California Class C non-commercial Driver s license for three or more years prior to the experiment, and had, onaverage, 7 years of driving experience. All participants spokefluent English; secondarylanguages amongst bilingual participants included Spanish, Cantonese, and MeasuresBilingualism were asked to complete a demographics ques-tionnaire that included items that pertained to both driving and language. Languagequestions were obtained from previous language questionnaires [13,14] and askedparticipants to rate their skill level for their reading, writing, speaking and listeningability. The rating scale ranged from Very Poor (1) to Native-Like (7).

8 Bilingualparticipants were selected only if their reported secondary language ability ranged from Functional (4) to Native-Like (7).Lane Change LCT was used to assess driving performance. The LCT is adriving simulation that is easy to implement and has been evaluated for reliability,validity, and sensitivity [15,16]. The LCT features a 3-kilometer straight-lane trackthat presents lane change signs roughly every 150 m. Participants were instructed toDifferences in Driver Distractibility181drive at 60 km/hour for the length of the track and to make a total of 18 lane changesindicated by a lane change sign as quickly and efficiently as possible ( ). Par-ticipants used a G27 Logitech Force-Feedback racing wheel and pedal system to drivein the simulation.

9 Three tracks (3 min each) were completed for every experimentalcondition. Participants were instructed to give priority to the driving task when com-pleting additional secondary tasks. Given the response nature of the secondary tasks, alldriving was completed with the left Detection Tasks (PDTs).Participants were instructed to make theappropriate button presses on an Ergodex keyboard with their right thumb and indexfinger when they identified a visual stimulus. The PDT stimuli were white circles thatwere projected onto the LCT image along the horizon line through the duration of eachtrack. Participants were asked to complete three different PDTs in which stimuli wereeither (1) all stationary, (2) all moving, or (3) combined stationary and moving.

10 For thetwo former conditions, participants were asked to determine the left-right location ofthe stimuli, and for the latter condition, whether the stimuli were stationary or moving(see ). The white circles were randomly presented on either side at either 13 or19 to the right or left of the center of the road and were 500 ms in were asked to recall prerecorded auditory items presentedfrom a speaker to the right of the Driver . The2-back task featured 10-item sets thatbegan with the word next and were followed by a random presentation of numbers(digits 0-9) every two-seconds. Every 10-item set lasted roughly 25 s and six sets (60numbers) were played through the duration of a three-minute LCT track.