1. Effect of cellular telephone conversations and other potential interference on reaction time in a breaking response. [1] IE484 Lab Section 1 Jennifer Powell and Rupal Parmar

2. Introduction “The widespread use of cellular phones by automobile drivers has recently generated safety concerns” [1]. “One state and several local municipalities have already restricted the use of phones by drivers” [1]. Have you driven while talking on a cell phone? Were you distracted? OR Do you feel these laws are unfair and unnecessary?

3. Purpose “To determine the effect of cellular phone conversations and other potential interference on reaction time in a braking response” [1]. “Other potential interference” includes conversations with vehicle passenger and radio noise.

4. Background “US crash data have suggested that a majority of cellular phone-related crashes occurred during conversations” [1] “Data from Japan showed the majority of cellular phone-related crashes occurred during dialing or receiving calls” [1]. Some counties “ban the use of hand-held phones but not hands-free phones” [1]. This study also investigates hand-held cell phones verses hands-free cell phones.

5. Experiment Apparatus “designed to simulate the foot activity in driving a vehicle with automatic transmission” [1]. Had gas & brake pedals in normal location Seat adjusted as a car seat Red lamp placed in front of apparatus

6. Experiment 22 participants, half male & half female, ages 18-27 years old. 5 conditions tested: - Control - Listening to Radio - Conversing with a Passenger - Conversing using hands-free phone - Conversing using hand-held phone Experiment 22 participants, half male & half female, ages 18-27 years old. 5 conditions tested: - Control - Listening to Radio - Conversing with a Passenger - Conversing using hands-free phone - Conversing using hand-held phone

7. References [1] Consiglio, W., Driscoll, P., Witte, M. and Berg, W.P., 2003, Effect of cellular telephone conversations and other potential interference on reaction time in a breaking response, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35 (4) 495-500. [2] Redelmeier, D., Tibshirani, R., 1997, Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol.336, Iss.7; pg.453, 6 pgs. References [1] Consiglio, W., Driscoll, P., Witte, M. and Berg, W.P., 2003, Effect of cellular telephone conversations and other potential interference on reaction time in a breaking response, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35 (4) 495-500. [2] Redelmeier, D., Tibshirani, R., 1997, Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol.336, Iss.7; pg.453, 6 pgs.

8. Data Analysis Mean Reaction Times were computed for each condition [7] Mean Reaction Times were computed for each condition [7] Repeated measures ANOVA [7] Repeated measures ANOVA [7] Pair wise comparisons using Tukey simultaneous tests [7] Pair wise comparisons using Tukey simultaneous tests [7]

9. Expected Results Cellular phone use would cause a significant increase in braking RT Cellular phone use would cause a significant increase in braking RT Increase in RT: conversation with passenger Increase in RT: conversation with passenger Hands free has no advantage over hand held model Hands free has no advantage over hand held model Listening to music would have less effect on RT Listening to music would have less effect on RT

10. Results [8] No difference between performance of men and No difference between performance of men and women women Conversation slowed RT whether it was Conversation slowed RT whether it was  Conducted in-person  Hand held cellular phone  Hands-free cellular phone RT was not slowed when listening to Radio RT was not slowed when listening to Radio

11. Discussion Cellular phone use Cellular phone use  Increase RT for traffic safety  Severe rear end collisions Conversation with a passenger Conversation with a passenger  RT can be slowed by paced conversations (passenger or phone)  Increase frequency of rear end collisions

12. Discussion Hand-held vs. hands free phones Hand-held vs. hands free phones  No difference in decrease in RT  More capacity interference than structural interference Ban use of hand held phones Ban use of hand held phones Assumption: phone is distracting only if structural interference is involved (Wrong)[7] Assumption: phone is distracting only if structural interference is involved (Wrong)[7]

13. Discussion Radio Listening Radio Listening Minimal interference Minimal interference Raises doubt “ phones constitute no more of a distraction to drivers than car radios” (Stein et al., 1987) Raises doubt “ phones constitute no more of a distraction to drivers than car radios” (Stein et al., 1987)

14. Limitations Focus on young adults ( 18-27) Focus on young adults ( 18-27) Determine the implications for real life driving is problematic Determine the implications for real life driving is problematic Few trials were provided for each condition (only 5) Few trials were provided for each condition (only 5)  Does not effect results  meant RTs per condition in the order they were performed  Mean relative within-subject variability

15. Conclusions[9] Study’s findings supported previous research Study’s findings supported previous research Paced conversation with a passenger slowed Paced conversation with a passenger slowed RT as much as a phone conversation did RT as much as a phone conversation did Capacity interference is inevitable under Capacity interference is inevitable under conditions of paced conversation conditions of paced conversation ARE THEY REASONABLE? ARE THEY REASONABLE?

16. Future work/research directions[10] Still to learn which is more distracting Still to learn which is more distracting  Use of phones  Secondary tasks Whether the distraction poses increased Whether the distraction poses increased accident risks accident risks