pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Emergency Braking Evoked Brain Activities during Distracted Driving - PubMed

  • ️Sat Jan 01 2022

Emergency Braking Evoked Brain Activities during Distracted Driving

Changcheng Shi et al. Sensors (Basel). 2022.

Abstract

Electroencephalogram (EEG) was used to analyze the mechanisms and differences in brain neural activity of drivers in visual, auditory, and cognitive distracted vs. normal driving emergency braking conditions. A pedestrian intrusion emergency braking stimulus module and three distraction subtasks were designed in a simulated experiment, and 30 subjects participated in the study. The common activated brain regions during emergency braking in different distracted driving states included the inferior temporal gyrus, associated with visual information processing and attention; the left dorsolateral superior frontal gyrus, related to cognitive decision-making; and the postcentral gyrus, supplementary motor area, and paracentral lobule associated with motor control and coordination. When performing emergency braking under different driving distraction states, the brain regions were activated in accordance with the need to process the specific distraction task. Furthermore, the extent and degree of activation of cognitive function-related prefrontal regions increased accordingly with the increasing task complexity. All distractions caused a lag in emergency braking reaction time, with 107.22, 67.15, and 126.38 ms for visual, auditory, and cognitive distractions, respectively. Auditory distraction had the least effect and cognitive distraction the greatest effect on the lag.

Keywords: auditory distraction; cognitive distraction; driving distraction; electroencephalogram; emergency braking; statistical parametric mapping; visual distraction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1

Simulated driving platform. (A) The road for the simulation was designed with curves and slopes to simulate a real driving road. (B) For the simulated scenario, the subject wore an EEG cap on the head, and EEG information was collected while simulating driving. (C) Simulation of the driving display screen showed the current lap number and speed in the upper left corner, and the visual and cognitive distraction screen in the upper right corner when visual or cognitive distraction occurred.

Figure 2
Figure 2

Visual and auditory distraction paradigm. (A) Visual distraction paradigm. (B) Auditory distraction paradigm.

Figure 3
Figure 3

Emergency braking brain area activation in four driving conditions (p < 0.05(FWE), extent threshold k > 100 voxels). (A) Normal driving. (B) Visual distraction driving. (C) Auditory distraction driving. (D) Cognitive distraction driving. Below the axial-viewed image is the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) Z-coordinate of the peak of the current activation cluster.

Figure 4
Figure 4

ANOVA of emergency braking in four driving conditions vs. normal driving (p < 0.001(FWE), extent threshold k > 100 voxels). (A) Emergency braking under normal driving vs. normal driving. (B) Emergency braking under visual distraction driving vs. normal driving. (C) Emergency braking under auditory distraction driving vs. normal driving. (D) Emergency braking under cognitive distraction driving vs. normal driving. Below the axial-viewed image is the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) Z-coordinate of the peak of the current activation cluster.

Figure 5
Figure 5

ANOVA of emergency braking in distracted driving vs. emergency braking in normal driving (p < 0.001(FWE), extent threshold k > 50 voxels). (A) Visual distraction driving vs. normal driving. (B) Auditory distraction driving vs. normal driving. (C) Cognitive distraction driving vs. normal driving. Below the axial-viewed image is the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) Z-coordinate of the peak of the current activation cluster.

Figure 6
Figure 6

Analysis of emergency braking response time under four driving states. (A) Average response time. (B) Statistical differences in response time. (*** p < 0.001).

Similar articles

References

    1. Wang H.K., Bi L.Z., Teng T. Neural correlates and detection of braking intention under critical situations based on the power spectra of electroencephalography signals. Sci. China-Inf. Sci. 2020;63:119202. doi: 10.1007/s11432-018-9643-5. - DOI
    1. Heimes F., Nagel H.H. Towards active machine-vision-based driver assistance for urban areas. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2002;50:5–34. doi: 10.1023/A:1020272819017. - DOI
    1. Enkelmann W. Video-based driver assistance-from basic functions to applications. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2001;45:201–221. doi: 10.1023/A:1013658100226. - DOI
    1. Matuszyk L., Zelinsky A., Nilsson L., Rilbe M. Stereo panoramic vision for monitoring vehicle blind-spots; Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium; Parma, Italy. 14–17 June 2004; pp. 31–36.
    1. Gavrila D.M. Sensor-based pedestrian protection. IEEE Intell. Syst. 2001;16:77–81. doi: 10.1109/5254.972097. - DOI

MeSH terms