Shifting priorities at the wheel
  • font_down font_up Text Size
Multitasking while driving may exceed brain's capacity

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 Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and his colleagues. Attending to what someone says galvanizes language-related brain areas while simultaneously reducing activity in spatial regions that coordinate driving behavior.

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 University of Utah in Salt Lake City agrees, adding that the new results offer a conservative estimate of the neural impact of multitasking on driving. Strayer and his colleagues have documented steep declines in simulated driving skill, as well as a marked drop in driving speed, among volunteers using handheld or hands-free cell phones.

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
Comments 6
  • Well, again was results obtain from humans' smallest common denominator. An alert driver could indeed shave, talk, monitor the radio and shift gear without exceeding his brain power... Fighter pilots do much, much more in the midst of airdog fighting.
    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.
    Jean Bergeron Jean Bergeron
    Jun. 20, 2008 at 12:11pm
  • I think it would be prudent for Science News to demand that those who post comments identify whether they have a connection with an industry or organization that might be affected by the research findings on which they are commenting. I strongly suspect that the negative comments on this article came from representatives of the cell phone industry, the auto industry, or some related organization. For the record, I am an Adjunct Professor at the National Crash Analysis Center of the George Washington University and I consult with an organization that provides forensic services for plaintiffs, but not in cases involving cell phone use. Who do the rest of these people represent?
    Carl Nash Carl Nash
    Jun. 13, 2008 at 1:42pm
  • This research is invalid on its face: they did not measure what they were attempting to measure. First, they haven't measured any driving skills whatsoever--using a mouse or trackball to control a virtual vehicle does not even come close to simulating actual driving. That means a new skillset is in use--one that is more sensitive than using a steering wheel, even. Worse, they were lying down while doing it, which is a very abnormal position for a driver.

    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.
    Joe Evaristo Joe Evaristo
    May. 29, 2008 at 1:34pm
  • These studies are highly suspect and problematic. The questions is what real affect has these issues had on driving safety. Should we outlaw all human behavior because we cannot multitask safely or ban humans from driving? This would be the logical conclusion of these findings. Yes distracted driving does cause accidents, but what affect is technology having on driving safety and our nation's productivity when taken in its entirety.

    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.
    Chad Dornsife CDornsife
    May. 16, 2008 at 10:38am
  • I think you're missing the point of the research though. Yes, you can follow a road even while mildly distracted, because in the absence of unusual external stimuli, the brainpower required for driving is provided through automatic, subconscious visceral and behavioral mechanisms. The part of driving that suffers is the reflective oversight - the planning, the ability to anticipate the actions of other drivers and special conditions of the environment.

    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.
    E Potter EEP
    May. 12, 2008 at 9:26am
  • I see a problem with this research, in that the skill tested was one that's not ingrained at all, unlike driving. A driver can follow a road, and a driver can follow a road while mildly distracted. The participants in this case were given a task that's unfamiliar, which means they needed a lot more concentration to succeed in it (and as said, they failed often even without further distraction), so learning from this about a limit is a stretch.

    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.
    Eyal Teler ET3D
    May. 11, 2008 at 1:01am
Post a comment
Please login or register to participate.

Advertisement
Citations & References:
seperator
  • 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.