- :: Atom & Cosmos
- :: Body & Brain
- :: Earth
- :: Environment
- :: Genes & Cells
- :: Humans
- :: Life
- :: Matter & Energy
- :: Molecules
- :: Science & Society
- :: Other Topics
- :: Science News For Kids
A special corner of hell is reserved for drivers who weave from one lane to another at a crawl while blithely chatting on their cell phones. Even a simple form of multitasking — driving while listening to someone else talk — disrupts the ability to navigate a car safely, a new study finds.
An intriguing neural response underlies vehicular mishaps
associated with such distractions, say neuroscientist Marcel Just of
This finding suggests that people who combine relatively automatic tasks, such as speech comprehension and car driving, exceed a biological limit on the amount of systematic brain activity they can accommodate at one time, the researchers propose. As a result, the less-ingrained skill — in this case, driving, which is learned long after a person grasps a native language — takes a neural hit.
“What’s exciting is that now we have a biological account of how multitasking affects driving behavior,” Just says.
The new findings appear in the April 18 Brain Research.
If merely listening to someone talk dents the ability to maneuver a car, then other common driver activities may do the same, Just suggests. These behaviors include tuning or listening to a radio, eating and drinking, monitoring children or pets, and conversing with a passenger.
Cell phones stand out as particularly problematic for drivers, Just notes. Cell phone conversations require a driver’s constant attention in order not to appear rude or insulting to an unseen partner. In contrast, a talking passenger can willingly cut off conversation upon spying an approaching ambulance or some other demand on a driver’s attention.
Psychologist David Strayer of the
Just’s team studied 29 adults, ages 18 to 25. Each participant lay in a functional MRI scanner equipped with a screen that displayed a simulated driving exercise. These machines measure blood-flow changes in the brain, providing indirect signs of rises and falls in neural activity.
In one trial, volunteers steered a car along a virtual winding road using either a computer mouse or a computer trackball. The virtual car maintained a constant, moderate speed. Drivers encountered no intersections, hazards or other vehicles. Still, simulated driving while lying down in a noisy brain scanner proved challenging for participants.
Undisturbed driving activated areas toward the back of the brain involved in spatial perception.
In a second trial, participants steered a car down a virtual road with one hand while listening to general-knowledge sentences that they had to identify as true or false by pressing response buttons with the other hand.
Drivers responded correctly to nearly all sentences. This verbal task prompted strong activity in midbrain structures necessary for language comprehension, as well as a 37 percent decline in activity in spatial regions that had been employed during undisturbed driving.
During one-minute virtual trips, participants listening to sentences drove onto the shoulder of the pavement or into the wrong lane 13 times on average, compared with 9 times on average for undisturbed drivers.
“Listening to talk radio or to spoken directions from a navigation system while driving probably have similar effects to what we found,” Just says. “Multitasking puts high demands on the brain.”
Found in: Humans
- Just, M.A., T.A. Keller, and J. Cynkar. 2008. A decrease in brain activation associated with driving when listening to someone speak. Brain Research 1205(April 18):70-80.
For the cellphone issue, the author should have considered one of the key training for pilots. All trainees learn the hard way that speaking to the tower while flying can lead to a deadly spiral, if not focussing first on... flying the aircraft! Once that lesson learned, like bicycle, it stays. Plus, all of us have experienced driving without quite remembering having made a stretch... like walking without really noticing it. It is clearly part of mastering these kind of task and never meant dangerous driving. Little apparent brain activity doesn't mean danger. Indeed, the brain is much more than what MRI can see.
Next, it's admitted that the MRI itself was heavily distracting itself. That's yet another variable they didn't account for. And finally, pushing a button to answer a question requires more thought than just answering a question: words are automatic, translating words into an action individuals are not yet familiar with requires a lot of thought.
Speech is also described as automatic because it's ingrained. If it's automatic, the speech areas of the brain should not be the ones heavily worked--this is easily explained by the participants having to figure out which button to push for their answers.
This study measured nothing.
The USDOT for the last decade has been sponsoring faux research to justify new driver regulations. In several of these cellphone distraction test the drivers were put on narrow serpentine courses that required high levels of skill and concentration to navigate, then they added cellphone dialing etc. to these extreme conditions. The high failure rates cited here would indicate the same criteria was employed. What was proven? That cellphone use when the driver probably would not have used it otherwise is problematic.
Whereas cellphone use while driving has become ubiquitous. When you overlay a chart of the exponential growth of cellphones and other electronic aids for drivers over the accident rate charts, there is no correlation. Accident rates have been dropping unabated despite the exponential growth in use.
The most dangerous location on roadways is the ingress and egress friction points. If everyone left the roadway to make a call and pulled into a parking lot etc to make the call, the probability of being involved in an accident while pulling back into the stream would be increased by several magnitudes. Worse, for a few dollar fine, how unsafe is it for you or your family to be pulled onto a shoulder of a freeway, only feet from 70 mph traffic. When state workers do this they require crash attenuators on the back of trucks. Motorists do not get this protection nor do they report those that are injured or killed as a result of enforcement activities, they only do this for officers.
When you look at the quality of life, increase in productivity, and reduce miles driven that have resulted from the electronic aids we use in our vehicles. A review all factors, would probably show an overall reduction in accidents and energy use, too. What we know for sure is the accident data doesn't support the thesis of an actionable cause or new regulations.
The fact that you appear to drive adequately while distracted hides the fact that your driving is actually less skillful, and you are less able to cope with unexpected situations.
What this research seems to verify is that there are separate mental processes for driving and having a discussion, and there's a limit to the amount of simultaneous thought activity you can handle. When performing two seemingly simple tasks simultaneously, these results suggest that the speed and quality of mental activity for the less ingrained task (simulated driving in this case) may suffer. The fact that the driving simulation wasn't really high fidelity isn't quite as important as the fact that you had a pair of tasks, one of them well-ingrained (comprehention) and one less ingrained (the driving simulation). The control provided a baseline for the amount of concentration the simulation required and a reasonable expectation for performance of that task.
The thing about driving is that it doesn't require a lot of concentration. In fact it can require little enough concentration (or provide too little stimulation) that if you *don't* do something else, you'll fall asleep.