The first stage of the research program, determination of distraction, provides the context for selecting the recommended next study. The first goal of this stage of the program is to determine whether any observed or measured distraction due to CEVMS is sufficient to interfere with attentional criteria for safe driving. The second goal is to provide some preliminary practical technical information that could be of help to the community interested in outdoor advertising control. This goal could consist of furnishing initial indications of the possible distraction effects produced by one or more of the concrete variables over which the community might exert some control, such as luminance (brightness), change rate, display size, and display spacing. According to the analysis summarized in section 4.0, to provide an initial answer to these types of questions, the three most effective research strategies are the on-road instrumented vehicle, the naturalistic driving, and the unobtrusive observation methods. In the present section, one possible preliminary study is briefly described using each of these three approaches. A more detailed description of each study approach is given in appendix B. This detailed description includes more specific information on the general method, factors and measures employed, advantages and disadvantages, and budgetary cost. After project initiation, a more comprehensive work plan and more in-depth budget will need to be developed. That comprehensive work plan should receive inputs from all of the important stakeholders in CEVMS research, which include industry, environmentalists, researchers, and regulators alike. After careful and thorough deliberation, the final details of that comprehensive work plan and budget may differ considerably from what is suggested in this section or in appendix B.
The on-road instrumented vehicle method employs an instrumented vehicle which is brought to the study site. The study site is a location where there are one or more CEVMS installations along a public access roadway. Each research participant drives the instrumented vehicle along a prescribed route, which includes CEVMS installations, standard (non-digital) billboards, objects of casual visual interest (e.g., houses and barns), and natural background control scenery (e.g., trees and fields). Each participant completes several such drives. The instrumented vehicle is capable of measuring vehicle speed, vehicle lane position, longitudinal acceleration, lateral acceleration, GPS time and position, and driver eye glance direction and duration. The instrumented vehicle is also equipped with accurate vehicle-mounted or head-mounted eye-tracking equipment, video cameras (forward and cab views), and a voice recorder. The major independent variable in the study is the presence or absence of CEVMS and other comparison visual stimuli along the driving path. If possible, the CEVMS should be capable of being turned off and on or changing along some other dimension like luminance or change rate, according to a prearranged experimental design. Other important independent variables are the time of day (day/night), traffic conditions (peak, nonpeak) and driver variables (age, gender, and route familiarity). The primary dependent variables are the frequency, direction, and duration of driver eye glances. Secondary dependent measures are safety surrogate indicators associated with driver errors and other measures of driver performance, such as speed changes, headway, lane deviation, and traffic conflicts. A rough budgetary estimate for conducting such an on-road instrumented vehicle study is between $400,000 and $800,000 (see appendix B for more details).
The naturalistic driving method employs a standardized instrument package which is installed in each participant's own private vehicle or in a vehicle loaned to the participant. The participant's vehicle appears and performs as it normally would. Participants drive their vehicles as part of their daily life routines, making control of CEVMS exposure difficult. The instrument package is capable of measuring speed, lane position, acceleration, GPS time and position, driver eye glance frequency, direction, and duration. However, because of the unobtrusive nature of the experimental technique, this method cannot support the use of accurate head-mounted or vehicle-mounted eye-tracking equipment. Once the participant's vehicle has been instrumented, data are collected by means of automatic wireless downloads without participant awareness or involvement. The major independent variable is the presence or absence of CEVMS and other comparison visual stimuli (standard billboards, buildings, control settings, etc.) along the driven path. If possible, the CEVMS should be controlled according to a prearranged experimental protocol. Secondary independent variables could include the type of vehicle (sedan, pickup, or SUV) and driver characteristics (age, gender, and route familiarity). The primary measures or dependent variables are the frequency, direction, and duration of the driver's eye glances. However, as a result of the lower degree of accuracy in eye movement recording, this study method depends more heavily on secondary dependent variables. Safety surrogate measures associated with driver errors and other measures of driver performance (headway, lane deviation, conflicts, and erratic maneuvers) are of increased importance in this method. Additional dependent variables may include the time of day (day/night), traffic conditions (peak, nonpeak), in-vehicle distractions (eating, cell phone use), state of fatigue, etc. A rough budgetary estimate for conducting such a naturalistic driving study is between $2 million and $4 million (see appendix B for more details).
The unobtrusive observation method employs an array of static cameras or other sensors mounted near the locations of the CEVMS and other comparison stimuli. The cameras are capable of recording the behavior of vehicles passing the various relevant visual stimuli as a part of the natural flow of traffic. The drivers are usually completely unaware that their vehicles are being observed. Post-hoc analysis of the video recordings from these cameras can yield data similar to some of that obtained by the on-road instrumented vehicle and naturalistic driving methods including vehicle speed, lane position, acceleration, and time. However, the data from distal video cameras are usually far less accurate and reliable than what can be collected by instruments on board the vehicle. Moreover, with present measurement technology, such video recordings cannot yield any data concerning driver eye glance movements. The major independent variable is the presence or absence of CEVMS and other comparison visual stimuli (standard billboards, buildings, etc.) along the driving path. If possible, the CEVMS should be controlled according to a prearranged experimental protocol.
Some secondary independent variables might include the time of day (day/night) and traffic conditions (peak, nonpeak). This study method depends completely on safety surrogate measures associated with driver errors and other measures of driver performance (headway, lane deviation, and erratic maneuvers), and it requires a large camera array over a long distance recording for extended periods, as well as extensive data analysis. A rough budgetary estimate for conducting such an unobtrusive observation study is between $1 million and $3 million (see appendix B for more details).
This section has introduced and described three different candidate approaches for the recommended next study, which include the on-road instrumented vehicle method, the naturalistic driving method, and the unobtrusive observation method. Each study method would be capable of addressing the two-part basic research question to determine whether any observed or measured distraction due to CEVMS is sufficient to interfere with attentional criteria for safe driving, and to provide some preliminary practical technical information that could be of help to the community interested in outdoor advertising control. However, each method has certain advantages and disadvantages with regard to its ability to address these two questions.
The on-road instrumented vehicle method was judged the best, having the advantage of being sensitive to a wide range of participant variables, including accurate eye glance measurements with real CEVMS stimuli in natural settings. The degree of experimental control afforded by this method makes it the most productive of the three. Driving scenarios can be selected with a number of CEVMS and standard billboard stimuli along a single drive, which can be repeated both within and across research participants. To the degree that accurate measurements of visual distraction and eye glance behavior are pivotal dependent variables, the on-road instrumented vehicle method has the clear advantage. The high degree of experimental control ensures that exposure to CEVMS and to comparing visual stimuli is uniform and consistent. The on-road instrumented vehicle approach is the most productive research method for producing quality data in the shortest amount of time for the least cost.
The naturalistic driving method was judged the second best, offering some similar advantages to the on-road instrumented vehicle method. However, it suffered from less experimental control over CEVMS exposure, less ability to capture participant-related variables, and more logistical complication and expense. Both of these methods are somewhat related from the perspective of the research participant. In both cases, the research participant is driving in an instrumented vehicle on a real road. Both allow the determination of driver eye glance behavior to some degree, but the increased level of experimental control exercised in the on-road instrumented vehicle method gives this technique a distinct advantage, both in terms of more accurate eye glance measurements and more consistent driver exposure.
Finally, unobtrusive observation of safety surrogate measures involves no direct contact with the driver, thus preserving a completely natural driving environment. However, this method is not sensitive to participant variables. In particular, it is not possible to measure eye glance behavior with this method. This method depends solely on safety surrogate measures. Furthermore, since these safety surrogate measures are relatively subtle to detect at a distance, this method can be costly and time-consuming to implement.
The on-road instrumented vehicle method has a strong advantage in productivity and efficiency. The major advantage of the other two methods is the natural and unobtrusive nature of the study procedure from the perspective of the research participants. However, some degree of artificiality may be a small price to pay to gain the cost effectiveness of the on-road instrumented vehicle method. In the final analysis, the present report recommends the on-road instrumented vehicle method as the best choice for the first stage study. This recommendation is made on the basis of scientific merit, timeliness of producing a meaningful result, and cost.