Cited by 243Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyTraffic and Road SafetyOlder Adults Driving Studies

Effects of practice, age, and task demands, on interference from a phone task while driving

Shinar, David, Tractinsky, Noam, Compton, Richard·2005·Accident Analysis & Prevention

Abstract

Experimental research on the effects of cellular phone conversations on driving indicates that the phone task interferes with many driving-related functions, especially with older drivers. Unfortunately in past research (1) the dual task conditions were not repeated in order to test for learning, (2) the 'phone tasks' were not representative of real conversations, and (3) most often both the driving and the phone tasks were experimenter-paced. In real driving drivers learn to time-share various tasks, they can pace their driving to accommodate the demands of a phone conversation, and they can even partially pace the phone conversation to accommodate the driving demands. The present study was designed to better simulate real driving conditions by providing a simulated driving environment with repeated experiences of driving while carrying two different hands-free 'phone' tasks with different proximities to real conversations. In the course of five sessions of driving and using the phone, there was a learning effect on most of the driving measures. In addition, the interference from the phone task on many of the driving tasks diminished over time as expected. Finally, the interference effects were greater when the phone task was the often-used artificial math operations task than when it was an emotionally involving conversation, when the driving demands were greater, and when the drivers were older. Thus, the deleterious effects of conversing on the phone are very real initial…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.aap.2004.09.007

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shinar, D., Tractinsky, N., & Compton, R.
Affiliations
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • United States Department of Transportation (US)
Corresponding author
Shinar, David
Venue
Accident Analysis & Prevention
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-03
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
315-326
ISSN
0001-4575 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1976789127
Cited by
243
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 12
FWCI
9.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Accident Analysis & Prevention (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
  • U.S. Department of Transportation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Traffic and Road Safety
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Older Adults Driving Studies
Keywords
dual-task interference, older drivers, learning effects, driving simulation, task demands, practice effects
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Automobile Driving, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Practice, Psychological, Psychomotor Performance, Task Performance and Analysis, Multivariate Analysis, Workload, Cell Phone

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review