Validity of Mental Workload Measures in a Driving Simulation Environment

Galante, Francesco; Bracco, Fabrizio; Chiorri, Carlo; Pariota, Luigi; Biggero, Luigi; Bifulco, Gennaro N. · 2018 · Crossref

DOI: 10.1155/2018/5679151

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged

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

Summary

This study investigates the validity of a fixed-base driving simulator (DS) for assessing mental workload by comparing behavioral and subjective measures obtained in a simulated environment against those from on-road driving. The motivation stems from the need to test automated in-vehicle systems safely; while DSs offer experimental control, their "functional fidelity"—the degree to which they replicate real-world cognitive and affective responses—must be rigorously established. Specifically, the authors aimed to determine if a DS could reliably measure mental workload using the same participants and route in both environments. The experimental design involved 100 participants selected via quota sampling to match the Italian driver population demographics. Each participant completed two driving tests: one on-road using an instrumented vehicle and one in a DS, both covering a 78-km loop consisting of a highway, a second highway, and a rural road. The order of tests was randomized. Mental workload was assessed using two methods: a behavioral secondary task (Rotated Figures Task, RFT) performed concurrently with driving, and subjective ratings using the NASA-TLX and Short Stress State Questionnaire (SSSQ). The RFT involved discriminating between stick figures, with performance metrics including accuracy, response time, and a Combined Time/Correctness Factor (CTCF). Results indicated mixed support for simulator validity. Behavioral measures showed significant correlations between the simulator and on-road environments, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.41 to 0.55 for accuracy and response times, suggesting moderate relative validity. However, absolute validity was not achieved; drivers generally performed better on the road than in the simulator, with higher accuracy and faster response times on-road. Subjective measures also showed significant correlations, but mean workload ratings were often higher in the simulator, likely due to simulator sickness and the novelty of the environment. The study found that simulator sickness was a critical factor affecting generalizability. The authors conclude that while the DS is a viable tool for relative comparisons of workload, increased familiarization sessions are necessary to mitigate simulator sickness and improve the correspondence between simulated and real-world behavioral data.

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.

Summary generated by qwen3.8-27b-gittensor on 2026-08-23; verification: pending re-verification.

Topics

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

• workload measurement
• simulator validity fidelity
• mental demand
• stress driving
• simulator training transfer
• simulator sickness

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
• Methodological Resource: validation psychometrics
• Theoretical Contribution: theory or model