Sürücülerin Algısal Motor ve Güvenlik Becerilerinin İşitsel ve Görsel İkincil Görev Sırasında Sergilenen Şerit Koruma Performansındaki Rolü

Öz

Mevcut çalışmanın amacı, sürücülerin algısal motor ve güvenlik becerileri hakkındaki değerlendirmelerinin işitsel ve görsel ikincil görevler sırasında sergilenen şerit pozisyonundaki değişkenliği yordama güçlerini araştırmaktır. Araç simülatörünün kullanıldığı deneylere toplamda 66 sürücü katılımda bulunmuştur. Görsel ve işitsel ikincil görev gruplarına eşit şekilde atanan katılımcılardan Sürücülük Becerisi Ölçeğini doldurmaları istenmiştir. Çoklu doğrusal regresyon analizlerinden elde edilen bulgulara göre, işitsel ikincil görev sürüşe eşlik ettiğinde, algısal motor ve güvenlik becerilerinin şeritten sapma miktarını yordamadaki katkıları anlamlı değildir. İşitsel görev grubundaki katılımcılar sadece sürüş ile ilgilendiklerinde, algısal motor becerilerin şerit pozisyonundaki değişkenlik ile negatif yönde ilişkili olduğu bulunmuştur. İkincil görevin görsel olduğu durumda ve aynı grubun sadece sürüşe odaklandığı durumda algısal motor beceriler ile şerit pozisyonundaki değişkenlik arasında negatif bir ilişki saptanmıştır. Hem işitsel hem görsel ikincil görev gruplarındaki tüm deney koşullarında, güvenlik becerileri ile şerit pozisyonundaki değişkenlik arasında anlamlı bir ilişki tespit edilememiştir. İlgili alanyazın temel alınarak çalışmadan elde edilen bulgular tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• güvenlik becerileri,araç kullanma,işitsel ikincil görev,görsel ikincil görev,algısal motor beceriler,görsel ikincil görev

The Role of Drivers’ Perceptual Motor and Safety Skills in Lane Maintenance During Auditory and Visual Secondary Tasks

Öz

The objective of this work was to investigate the predictive power of drivers’ assessments about their perceptual motor and safety skills for the variability in lane position during auditory and visual secondary tasks. A total of 66 drivers participated in the experiments and drove a simulated vehicle. Participants equally assigned to auditory and visual secondary task conditions were asked to fill out the Driver Skill Inventory. Results of the multiple linear regression analyses showed that when the auditory secondary task accompanied driving, perceptual motor and safety skills did not significantly predict the variability in lane position. When the drivers who were in the auditory task group only engaged in driving, perceptual motor skills and variability in lane position were found to be negatively related. There was also a negative relationship between perceptual motor skills and variability in lane position in both visual secondary task and driving-only conditions. In none of the experimental conditions of auditory and visual secondary task groups, a significant relationship between safety skills and variability in lane position was found. Findings were discussed based on the relevant literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• perceptual motor skills,safety skills,driving,auditory secondary task,visual secondary task

Kaynakça

1. Beede, K. E. ve Kass, S. J. (2006). Engrossed in conversation: The impact of cell phones on simulated driving performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38, 415-421. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2005.10.015
2. Caird, J. K., Willness, C. R., Steel, P. ve Scialfa, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of the effects of cell phones on driver performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(4), 1282-1293. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2008.01.009
3. Drews, F. A., Pasupathi, M. ve Strayer, D. L. (2008). Passenger and cell phone conversations in simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(4), 392-400. doi:10.1037/a0013119
4. Eensoo, D., Paaver, M. ve Harro, J. (2010). Factors Associated with Speeding Penalties in Novice Drivers. Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine / Annual Scientific Conference, 54, 287–294.
5. Engström, J., Johansson, E. ve Östlund, J. (2005). Effects of visual and cognitive load in real and simulated motorway driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8, 97-120. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2005.04.012
6. Haque, M. M. ve Washington, S. (2014). A parametric duration model of the reaction times of drivers distracted by mobile phone conversations. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 62, 42-53. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.09.010
7. He, J., Choi, W., McCarley, J. S., Chaparro, B. S. ve Wang, C. (2015). Texting while driving using Google Glass: Promising but not distraction-free. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 81, 218–229. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2015.03.033
8. Jamson, A. H. ve Merat, N. (2005). Surrogate in-vehicle information systems and driver behaviour: Effects of visual and cognitive load in simulated rural driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8, 79-96. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2005.04.002

9. Kircher, K. ve Ahlstrom, C. (2017). Minimum required attention: A human-centered approach to driver inattention. Human Factors, 59(3), 471-484. doi:10.1177/0018720816672756
10. Kubose, T. T., Bock, K., Dell, G. S., Garnsey, S. M., Kramer, A. F. ve Mayhugh, J. (2006). The effects of speech production and speech comprehension on simulated driving performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(1), 43-63. doi: 10.1002/acp.1164
11. Lajunen, T., Corry, A., Summala, H. ve Hartley, L. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in drivers' self-assessments of their perceptual-motor and safety skills: Australians and Finns. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(4), 539-550.
12. Lajunen, T. ve Özkan, T. (2004). Kültür, güvenlik kültürü, Türkiye ve Avrupa'da trafik güvenliği. Tübitak.
13. Lajunen, T., Parker, D. ve Stradling, S. G. (1998). Dimensions of driver anger, aggressive and highway code violations and their mediation by safety orientation in UK drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1(2), 107-121. doi:10.1016/s1369-8478(98)00009-6
14. Lajunen, T. ve Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality, and skill and safety-motive dimensions in drivers' self-assessments. Personality & Individual Differences, 19(3), 307-318
15. Liang, Y. ve Lee, J. D. (2010). Combining cognitive and visual distraction: Less than the sum of its parts. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42, 881-890. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2009.05.001
16. Logan, G. D. ve Crump, M. J. (2009). The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Psychological Science, 20(10), 1296-1300.
17. Medeiros-Ward, N., Cooper, J. M. ve Strayer, D. L. (2014). Hierarchical control and driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 953–958. doi: 10.1037/a0035097
18. Mehler, B., Reimer, B. ve Dusek, J. A. (2011). MIT AgeLab delayed digit recall cask (n-back) [White paper]. http://dosen.narotama.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MIT-AgeLab-delayed-digit-recall-task-n-back.pdf
19. Metz, B., Schoch, S., Just, M. ve Kuhn, F. (2014). How do drivers interact with navigation systems in real life conditions? Results of a field-operational-test on navigation systems. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 24, 146-157. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2014.04.011
20. Michon, J. A. (1985). A critical view of driver behavior models: What do we know, what should we do? Human Behavior and Traffic Safety, 485-524. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-2173-6_19
21. National Highway Traffic Safety (2017). Distracted Driving 2015. Washington, Birleşik Devletler.
22. Owen, A. M., McMillan, K. M., Laird, A. R. ve Bullmore, E. (2005). N-back working memory paradigm: A meta-analysis of normative functional neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 25(1), 46-59. doi:10.1002/hbm.20131
23. Oppenheim, L. ve Shinar, D. (2011). Human factors and ergonomics. B. E. Porter (Ed.), Handbook of traffic psychology içinde (s.193-211). London: Academic Press.
24. Özbozdağlı, S. (2015). The effects of auditory and visuo-spatial secondary tasks on lane maintenance in predictable and unpredictable driving conditions. (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
25. Özbozdağlı, S., Misirlisoy, M., Özkan, T. ve Atalay, N. B. (2017). Effects of primary task predictability and secondary task modality on lane maintenance. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2017.10.005.
26. Parkes, A. M. ve Coleman, N. (1990). Route guidance systems: A comparison of methods of presenting directional information to the driver. E. J. Lovesey (Ed.), Contemporary ergonomics 1990 içinde (s. 480-485). Londra: Taylor & Francis.
27. Schömig, N., Metz, B. ve Krüger, H. P. (2011). Anticipatory and control processes in the interaction with secondary tasks while driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 14, 525-538. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2011.06.006
28. Schroeder, P., Meyers, M. ve Kostyniuk, L. (2013, Nisan). National survey on distracted driving attitudes and behaviors – 2012. (Report No. DOT HS 811 729). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
29. Strayer, D. L. ve Drews, F. A. (2004). Profiles in driver distraction: Effects of cell phone conversations on younger and older drivers. Human Factors, 46(4), 640-649.
30. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A. ve Crouch, D. J. (2006). A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Human Factors, 48(2), 381-391.
31. Sümer, N., Lajunen, T. ve Özkan, T. (2002). Sürücü davranışlarının kaza riskindeki rolleri: İhlaller ve hatalar. Uluslararası Trafik ve Yol Güvenliği Kongresi ve Fuarı. 8-12 Mayıs, 2002, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
32. Sümer, N., Özkan, T. ve Lajunen, T. (2006). Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38, 703-711.
33. Tapp, K. M. ve Logan, G. D. (2011). Attention to the hands disrupts skilled typewriting: The role of vision in producing the disruption. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 2379–2383.
34. Thapa, R., Codjoe, J., Ishak, S. ve McCarter, K. S. (2015). Post and during event effect of cell phone talking and texting on driving performance: A driving simulator study. Traffic Injury Prevention, 16, 461-467. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2014.969803
35. Treisman, A. ve Davies, A. (1973). Divided attention to ear and eye. S. Kornblum (Ed.) Attention and performance IV içinde (s. 101-117). New York, NY: Academic Press.
36. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (2017). Karayolu Trafik Kaza İstatistikleri, 2016. Ankara, Türkiye. Erişim Tarihi: 03.04.2018, http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=24606