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

Clinique du Sommeil, CHU Pellegrin, Bordeaux, France.
Sleep (Impact Factor: 4.59). 12/2005; 28(12):1511-6.
Source: PubMed


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.

Download full-text


Available from: Nicholas D Moore, Sep 30, 2015
1 Follower
284 Reads
  • Source
    • "It can, therefore, be argued that the vast majority of the scenarios that have been modeled in the laboratory to date simply fail to capture adequately, among other things, the physical and mental state of the driver and the situational demands that are present in actual driving scenarios (see [11] for a review of driver fatigue). It is also interesting to note that Philip et al. [12] reported that driving for an extended period of 12 h in both simulated and real TABLE I SUMMARY OF LIMITATIONS OF LABORATORY-BASED ATTENTION RESEARCH driving gave rise to no apparent effect on reaction time (RT) performance and sleepiness, thus suggesting that the design of representative experiments is not simply a matter of using long laboratory experiments but identifying and measuring the parameters of concern (e.g., the rate of accidents/collisions as a function of time behind wheel). Now, if one goes back to the 1960s and 1970s, there are many applied studies in which an operator's vigilance has been assessed over relatively long periods of time (e.g., see [13]–[23]). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper provides a critical review of laboratory-based studies of spatial attention. We highlight a number of ways in which such studies fail to capture the key factors/constraints that have been shown to give rise to an increased risk of vehicular accident in real-world situations. In particular, limitations that are related to the design of the attentional capture task itself and limitations that are concern the demographic and current state of the participants tested in these laboratory studies are discussed. A list of recommendations are made concerning those areas in which laboratory-based spatial attention research could focus on in the future in order to make sure that their results are more relevant to those working in an applied setting, and thus, enhance translational research.
    IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 08/2014; 44(4):524-530. DOI:10.1109/THMS.2014.2316502 · 1.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "In fatigue studies, the use of driving simulators has been widely adopted in recent years [(Ting, Hwang, Doong, & Jeng, 2008); (Philip et al., 2005), (Thiffault & Bergeron, 2003)], in view of the opportunity of analysing hazardous driving conditions in a safe environment, to control effects induced by subjects' characteristics, and to measure changes in driving performance accurately. However, May and Baldwin (2009) argued that, in most studies, the experiments confused different causes of fatigue, focusing, for example, on circadian rhythm effects (SR-Fatigue) during highway driving performance (TR-Fatigue). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this study, passive task-related fatigue effects on highway driving were analyzed by means of driving simulator experiments. Ten drivers were asked to drive in various environments in the morning (9:00-11:00 a.m.) and early afternoon (1:00-3:00 p.m.). Mean of Absolute Steering Error and Standard Deviation of Lateral Position, calculated on sub-intervals of 4 minutes, were analysed as response variables. The results confirmed the negative influence of the duration of driving tasks and circadian effects on driving performance, increasing the likelihood of “near misses” and accidents.
    Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 02/2014; 111:955-964. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.130
  • Source
    • "Evidence like the post-lunch dip in performance caused by circadian rhythm [57] suggests that sleepiness may also play a role in studies that do not especially focus on it. The Karolinska Sleepiness Scale [1] is a one-item questionnaire that validly measures current sleepiness and is sensitive to deterioration in driving performance due to sleepiness [52]. A related state questionnaire is the Epworth Sleepiness Scale [29] which is a measure of general propensity toward daytime sleepiness. "
    [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 more