Fatigue, sleepiness, and performance in simulated versus real driving conditions.

Clinique du Sommeil, CHU Pellegrin, Bordeaux, France.
Sleep (Impact Factor: 5.06). 12/2005; 28(12):1511-6.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine whether real-life driving would produce different effects from those obtained in a driving simulator on fatigue, performances and sleepiness.
Cross-over study involving real driving (1200 km) or simulated driving after controlled habitual sleep (8 hours) or restricted sleep (2 hours).
Sleep laboratory and open French Highway.
Twelve healthy men (mean age +/- SD = 21.1 +/- 1.6 years, range 19-24 years, mean yearly driving distance +/- SD = 6563 +/- 1950 miles) free of sleep disorders.
Self-rated fatigue and sleepiness, simple reaction time before and after each session, number of inappropriate line crossings from the driving simulator and from video-recordings of real driving.
Line crossings were more frequent in the driving simulator than in real driving (P < .001) and were increased by sleep deprivation in both conditions. Reaction times (10% slowest) were slower during simulated driving (P = .004) and sleep deprivation (P = .004). Subjects had higher sleepiness scores in the driving simulator (P = .016) and in the sleep restricted condition (P = .001). Fatigue increased over time (P = .011) and with sleep deprivation (P = .000) but was similar in both driving conditions.
Fatigue can be equally studied in real and simulated environments but reaction time and self-evaluation of sleepiness are more affected in a simulated environment. Real driving and driving simulators are comparable for measuring line crossings but the effects are of higher amplitude in the simulated condition. Driving simulator may need to be calibrated against real driving in various condition.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We carried out two studies to evaluate the impact of a message posted on a variable message sign (VMS) ahead of a rural four-way intersection with reduced sight distance on the major road. In the first study, 23 participants drove a desktop driving simulator and in the second, 24 different participants drove a fixed-base full cab driving simulator, using the same 3D virtual database. Two identical situations were involved in both studies. We took this opportunity to study the impact of the Driving Simulator Configuration (DSC) on the participants’ driving responses in terms of lateral position, speed and gas pedal use, as well as on their level of control. Our aim was to determine whether both a desktop Driving Simulator (DS) and a full cab DS reliably replicate drivers’ behaviors and level of control. The results essentially show that on the desktop DS the participants’ approaches to the intersection were not smooth (a lack of anticipation) unlike those of the participants in the full cab DS. Furthermore, although for gas pedal use the participants using the two DSCs performed similarly, they drove at a higher speed on the desktop DS than in the full cab DS. Although the familiarization phase was exactly the same for both the studies, the results also show that the impact of the DSC varies according to the variable studied: the participants’ control of each variable depends on the driving simulator. In the full cab DS, the control of action is more fine-grained than on the desktop DS. From our results, given the widespread use of driving simulators in the field of transportation research, the choice of a DSC and the content of the familiarization phase are not trivial. Consequently, the familiarization process should be considered with as much care as the other aspects of driving simulator use.
    Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 11/2014; 27:99–111. DOI:10.1016/j.trf.2014.09.009 · 1.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Currently, the legal, technical and psychological regulatory framework of automated driving is being discussed by car manufacturers and researchers to guarantee its safe and smooth introduction into the traffic system. This discussion is accompanied by plenty of studies that seek to study the human side of the interaction with automation and to expose potential problems and hazards. Past research from other domains has shown that the studies' subjects differ considerably, for example in their abilities (e.g. ability to monitor) or in their attitudes (e.g. trust in automation). In this work we discuss potential individual differences – classified into dispositions, stable traits, operator state, attitudes and demographics – that could influence the human performance in interactions with automation. Where they exist, valid methods of measurement are referenced. The review closes with a deduction of potential risk groups that were inferred based on the reviewed literature.
    Interacción '14: Proceedings of the XV International Conference on Human Computer Interaction; 01/2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Data from two previously published studies were used to examine the correlations between scores on the violation, error and lapse sub-scales of the driver behaviour questionnaire, and observed driving speed. One dataset utilised data from an instrumented vehicle, which recorded driver speed on bends on a rural road. The other utilised data from a driving simulator study. Generally in both datasets the DBQ violation subscale was associated with objectively-measured speed, while the error and lapse sub-scales were not. These findings are consistent with the idea that the DBQ is a valid measure of observed behaviour in real driving (its original intended use) and also in simulated driving. The fact that associations were the same in real and simulated driving lends further support to the relative validity of driving simulation. The need for larger and more focused studies examining the role of different motivations in different driving situations is discussed. Crown Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Accident Analysis & Prevention 12/2014; 75C:245-251. DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2014.12.008 · 1.87 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 16, 2014