This is your brain on autopilot: Neural indices of driver workload and engagement during partial vehicle automation

McDonnell, AS; Simmons, TG; Erickson, GG; Lohani, M; Cooper, JM; Erickson, Gus G. · 2023 · publications_jsonl

DOI: 10.1177/00187208211039091

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates the neural correlates of driver workload and visual engagement during partial vehicle automation (SAE Level-2) in real-world on-road driving conditions. While simulator-based research has explored how automation affects cognitive states, it remains unclear whether these findings translate to actual roadway environments. The authors address concerns that partial automation may lead to under-arousal and disengagement, shifting the driver’s role from active controller to passive monitor. To assess this, the researchers utilized electroencephalography (EEG) to measure frontal theta power, an index of mental workload, and parietal alpha power, an index of visual engagement. The experiment involved 71 participants divided into young adult (21–40 years) and middle-aged adult (41–64 years) cohorts. Participants drove four different vehicles equipped with Lane Centering and Adaptive Cruise Control on two distinct interstates in Salt Lake City, Utah: I-15 (high-traffic, straight) and I-80 (low-traffic, curvy). The design was a 2 (Age Cohort) × 2 (Level of Automation) × 2 (Interstate) × 4 (Vehicle) factorial. Each participant completed 20-minute driving sessions in both manual (Level-0) and partially automated (Level-2) modes. EEG data were recorded using a three-electrode system at frontal (Fz), central (Cz), and parietal (Pz) sites. Data were processed to remove artifacts, and spectral power was analyzed using linear mixed-effects models to account for repeated measures and individual variability. The results indicated no significant difference in frontal theta or parietal alpha power between manual and partially automated driving conditions. Specifically, frontal theta power remained stable, suggesting that mental workload did not decrease significantly when automation was engaged. Similarly, parietal alpha power showed no significant change, indicating that visual engagement with the driving environment was maintained. Bayesian analysis provided strong to extreme evidence in favor of the null hypothesis for both metrics, confirming that the lack of difference was not due to low statistical power but rather a genuine absence of effect. Additionally, there were no significant differences in neural indices based on age cohort or interstate type, although a significant interaction was found between interstate and automation level for frontal theta, which did not alter the overall conclusion of no main effect. These findings suggest that drivers new to partial automation technology remain cognitively engaged and visually attentive to the driving environment, contrary to concerns that automation leads to disengagement or under-arousal. The study implies that the safety risks associated with driver disengagement may be less pronounced for novice users of Level-2 systems than previously hypothesized. By demonstrating stable neural indices of workload and engagement in real-world settings, the research provides empirical evidence that partial automation does not necessarily degrade driver situational awareness, at least in the short term for inexperienced users. This contributes to a more nuanced understanding of human-automation interaction, suggesting that regulatory and design concerns regarding driver disengagement may need to be tempered for this specific demographic and technology level.

Key finding

Engaging Level-2 partial automation produced no detectable change in frontal theta or parietal alpha power relative to manual driving (chi^2(1)=0.20, p=.651 for theta; null Bayes-factor evidence for both bands). Drivers new to the technology remained cognitively and visually engaged with the roadway under partial automation, contrary to under-arousal/disengagement concerns raised by simulator work.

Methodology

on_road

Sample size: N=71 (young adults n=39, mean age 29.07; middle-aged n=32, mean age 52.2); 192 vehicle test sessions

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via author_sweep_intake on 2026-05-28 (5 acquisition events logged).

StageOutcomeToolModelPromptAttemptsCompleted
discover success author_sweep 3 2026-05-28
archive failed pmc 12 2026-06-04
extract success cached 5 2026-08-10
clean success clean 2 2026-08-10
chunk success chunk 2 2026-08-10
embed success embed Qwen/Qwen3-Embedding-8B 2 2026-08-10
enrich success semantic_scholar 1 2026-06-04
promote success 2 2026-06-06
summarize success llm qwen3.6-27b-nvidia summ-v5 4 2026-08-10
tag success vector_similarity 27 2026-08-11
verify success 4 2026-08-11

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-nvidia on 2026-08-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).