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
    • "Another method that has enjoyed widespread use in road safety research is driving simulation. Driving simulators have provided useful insights into the impacts on driving performance of alcohol (Mortimer, 1963), distraction (e.g.Burns et al., 2002;Reed and Robbins, 2008), social drugs (Sexton et al., 2000), fatigue (e.g.Philip et al., 2005) and new vehicle technologies (e.g.Hoedemaker and Brookhuis, 1998). Although not cheap to administer in the way that self-report measures are, simulators offer a number of other benefits for the investigation of road safety issues. "
    [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.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2014 · Accident Analysis & Prevention
  • 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.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2014 · IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems
    • "As the focus of the study was on the temporal relationships between these variables and especially on the first crash or centreline crossing, greater numbers of crashes are less of concern. Research comparing fatigue and sleepiness in a simulator or real driving showed similar patterns of effects but more pronounced effects on both sleepiness ratings and reaction speed while driving in the simulator environment (Philip et al., 2005). Nevertheless, this study should be repeated on-road using less dangerous outcome measures in order to confirm the findings. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Drivers are advised to take breaks when they feel too tired to drive, but there is question over whether they are able to detect increasing fatigue and sleepiness sufficiently to decide when to take a break. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which drivers have access to cognitive information about their current state of sleepiness, likelihood of falling asleep, and the implications for driving performance and the likelihood of crashing. Ninety drivers were recruited to do a 2h drive in a driving simulator. They were divided into three groups: one made ratings of their sleepiness, likelihood of falling asleep and likelihood of crashing over the next few minutes at prompts occurring at 200s intervals throughout the drive, the second rated sleepiness and likelihood of falling asleep at prompts but pressed a button on the steering wheel at any time if they felt they were near to crashing and the third made no ratings and only used a button-press if they felt a crash was likely. Fatigue and sleepiness was encouraged by monotonous driving conditions, an imposed shorter than usual sleep on the night before and by afternoon testing. Drivers who reported that they were possibly, likely or very likely to fall asleep in the next few minutes, were more than four times more likely to crash subsequently. Those who rated themselves as sleepy or likely to fall asleep had a more than 9-fold increase in the hazards of a centerline crossing compared to those who rated themselves as alert. The research shows clearly that drivers can detect changes in their levels of sleepiness sufficiently to make a safe decision to stop driving due to sleepiness. Therefore, road safety policy needs to move from reminding drivers of the signs of sleepiness and focus on encouraging drivers to respond to obvious indicators of fatigue and sleepiness and consequent increased crash risk.
    No preview · Article · May 2014 · Accident; analysis and prevention
Show more