This is your brain on autopilot 2.0: The influence of practice on driver workload and engagement during on-road, partially automated driving
DOI: 10.1177/00187208231201054
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 whether practice can reduce or eliminate the cognitive impairment associated with concurrent cell phone use and driving. While previous research established that talking on a cell phone increases collision risk and impairs driving performance, the literature remained ambiguous regarding whether repeated exposure could mitigate these effects. The authors sought to resolve conflicting findings from prior studies by examining both real-world experience and simulator-based practice. They hypothesized that while practice might improve performance in predictable, repeated scenarios, it would fail to transfer to novel driving conditions due to the unpredictable nature of both driving and naturalistic conversation. The researchers employed a mixed within- and between-subject design using a high-fidelity driving simulator. Sixty undergraduate participants were selected based on self-reported real-world cell phone usage, divided into high-experience and low-experience groups. Participants underwent four 90-minute simulated driving sessions over successive days. The study included two phases: a practice phase involving repeated city or highway scenarios, and a transfer phase involving a novel scenario of the same type. During dual-task conditions, participants engaged in naturalistic conversations via hands-free cell phones with a research confederate. Dependent variables included collision rates, brake reaction time, following distance, and speed compliance. Results indicated that dual-task performance deficits persisted throughout the practice and transfer phases. Drivers using cell phones exhibited significantly slower brake reaction times, greater following distances, and lower speed compliance compared to single-task driving. Crucially, there was no significant difference in impairment between high- and low-experience groups, suggesting that real-world experience does not moderate dual-task interference. While collision rates decreased slightly during the repeated practice scenarios, this improvement did not transfer to the novel conditions; collision rates in the transfer phase were nearly identical to those on the first day of practice. Furthermore, other performance metrics showed no significant improvement with practice, and some variables, such as speed compliance, actually degraded. The study concludes that practice is unlikely to eliminate the disruptive effects of concurrent cell phone use on driving. The authors attribute this to the unpredictable structure of both tasks, which prevents the automation of the dual-task combination. Unlike previous studies that found improvements in stable vehicle control measures, this research focused on dynamic environmental interactions, revealing that drivers cannot "practice away" the cognitive costs of multitasking. These findings have significant implications for public policy, supporting legislation that restricts in-vehicle cell phone use, as neither simulator training nor real-world experience appears to sufficiently mitigate the associated safety risks.
Key finding
Level 2 partial automation increased rather than decreased driver workload (slower DRT RTs vs. manual driving), and six weeks of daily practice reduced that workload only on the simpler highway (I-15), not on the more complex I-80. EEG frontal theta and parietal alpha showed null effects of automation level and session, indicating practice and automation effects appeared behaviorally but not neurally.
Methodology
on_road
Sample size: N=30 (12 female, 18 male; M_age=35.73, SD=9.34)
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 tag_papers on 2026-05-30 (2 acquisition events logged).
| Stage | Outcome | Tool | Model | Prompt | Attempts | Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| discover | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-06 |
| archive | failed | pmc | — | — | 12 | 2026-06-04 |
| extract | success | pdf_extracted | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
| clean | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-01 |
| chunk | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-01 |
| embed | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-02 |
| enrich | success | semantic_scholar | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| promote | success | — | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-06 |
| summarize | success | llm | qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant | summ-v5 | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
| tag | success | vector_similarity | — | — | 16 | 2026-06-11 |
| verify | success | — | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; 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).
- Empirical Findings: physiological data, behavioral performance data
- Theoretical Contribution: theory or model