ArticlePloS one2020
What is the difference between perceived and actual risk of distracted driving? A field study on a real highway.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Distracting Behaviors on Driving Workload and Driving Performance in a City Scenario.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Distracted driving is a leading cause of traffic accidents. It is influenced by driver attitude toward secondary tasks; however, field-based studies on the effects of low-perceived-risk tasks on lateral driving have rarely been reported. A total of 17 experienced non-professional drivers were recruited to participate in two secondary tasks: a cognitive experiment (conversation) and a visual distraction experiment (observation of following vehicles), each representing low-perceived-risk secondary tasks. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to evaluate the effects of low-perceived-risk tasks on lateral driving performance. ANOVA results indicated that compared with baseline (no task) lateral performance, lane-keeping ability was enhanced during cognitive distractions. In the visual distraction experiment, more than 50% of the distractions required 1-2 s. Lane deviation and its growth rate increased with the duration of distraction. Compared with cognitive distraction, lane deviation increased significantly with visual distraction, and lane-keeping performance was seriously impaired. For low-perceived-risk tasks, visual distractions impaired driving safety more seriously, compared with cognitive distractions, suggesting that drivers misjudge the risks associated with visual tasks. These results can contribute to the design of advanced driving-assistance systems and improve professional driver programs, potentially reducing the frequency of traffic accidents caused by distracted driving.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.