Brain Behind the Wheel – How Visual and Auditory Stimuli Interference Affect Road Traffic Safety

Driving is more than just steering a vehicle; it involves seeing, thinking, and reacting. While hearing is important for noticing things like other cars, most of the focus in driving is on what we see. This article aims to explain how our brains handle all the things we see and hear while driving. It explores how these senses work together to keep us safe on the road, especially when it comes to distractions. We divided driving tasks into primary tasks crucial for safe driving (such as observing traffic signs) and secondary tasks (like reading billboards). While primary tasks ensure driver awareness, secondary tasks burden working memory, impacting attention and driving performance. Join us to understand how our minds make driving safer by processing what we see and hear.

Buckle up! – Introduction

Driving a vehicle is a task that includes various components – from observing the environment, to deciding on the route and taking control of a vehicle. Therefore, the three crucial factors influencing driving performance are sensory, cognitive, and physical functions (Edwards et al., 2017). Although hearing plays a crucial role, especially in detecting oncoming vehicles, potential hazards, and vehicle issues (Anstey et al., 2005), the core task of driving is centred on observing and processing visual information from the surroundings (Kimura et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2020).

A focal point of this article is to clarify the cognitive processes involved in managing different visual and auditory information during driving, investigating their interplay, and exploring how they are used to enhance road safety.

Let’s hit the road – Understanding Situational Complexity and Driver Focus

Unlike other skills that require a closed, predictable setting, driving is an open skill in a dynamic environment. The degree to which a person can modify their response to the complexity of the context and changing surroundings is frequently what defines their success in open skills. Numerous distractions might divert our attention and decrease our success rates when driving (Cantin et al., 2009).

The definition of driver distraction is the diversion of attention from primary tasks, necessary for safe driving, to another concurrent activity (Lee et al., 2013). This concept highlights the importance of maintaining goal-directed control of driver’s attention on task-specific data while avoiding distraction from irrelevant information (Wood et al., 2016). Distracted driving is therefore imposed by so-called secondary tasks which could be described as tasks that use our cognitive load when we should really be focusing only on driving (such as reaching for something, using a mobile phone, switching air conditioning) (Dingus et al., 2016; Palmiero et al., 2019; Ringhand et al., 2022). Hence, it appears essential to clearly distinguish between unintentional distractions resulting from specific stimuli within or outside the vehicle (such as warning messages), and the deliberate act of directing one’s focus towards a secondary task (like making a phone call), where drivers can choose how much they want to be distracted (Schömig & Metz, 2013).

Starting the Engine – Exploring the Brain Correlates

As a complex behaviour, driving engages various brain regions. It is no surprise that areas for motor control and perception and processing of visual information are the ones being most active during normal driving, which is focused driving without distractions. On the other hand, visual and auditory distractions cause an increase of activation in prefrontal areas, which are related to cognitive decision-making, and especially in the right frontal lobe, which is related to spatial attention as distractions increase the need for spatial working memory to keep on track with driver’s surroundings. Auditory distractions in terms of listening and responding to auditory stimuli furthermore activate language perception and processing areas and memory-related areas (such as the inferior temporal gyrus, left amygdala, right parahippocampal gyrus, and right angular gyrus). They are also believed to affect our driving performance the least as opposed to visual and other cognitive distractions. Hence, during distracted driving our brain makes a significant shift of activation from visual, auditory, and motor coordination and planning areas to the prefrontal cortex, in order to call upon sufficient brain resources to keep up with the demands of driving scenario (Shi et al., 2023).

Eyes Driving us Into a Ditch – How Visual Stimuli Affect Driving Performance

There are multiple sources of visual stimuli that may shift driver’s attention off the road. Failing to sense relevant visual information often results in misjudgement of a situation by drivers which is the main cause of crashes (Ringhand et al., 2022). This also includes misperceiving of several types of road signalling, such as traffic signs. It has been found that understandability of traffic signs plays a significant role in reaction times of drivers. In a study by Vilchez (2018), the reaction times of drivers were significantly slower when traffic signs were non-representative of their meaning (so, they did not suitably express the concept they tried to transmit) and participants made more errors in matching non-representative signs with their meanings than in matching representative ones. This suggests that the more straight-forward and clear the sign is, the more its meaning can be effectively linked to it, remembered, and retrieved. Moreover, not only representativity but also the ambiguity of signs affects reaction times of sign recognition. If a sign was univocal (so it could properly and easily discard meanings of other signs), reaction times were significantly faster and fewer errors in determining its meaning were made (Vilchez, 2018) which suggests that the more unique and differentiated a sign is, the faster we can recall its meaning correctly.

On the other hand, when we have to watch out for traffic signs outside our vehicle, the most common distractors by the roads are advertisements, especially digital ones which have risen in popularity in recent years. All kinds of digital billboard advertisements are significant cognitive distractors, yet animated ones make driving performance worse than static or transitioning digital billboard advertisements (Brome et al, 2021). Still, transitioning ones as well as animated ones draw driver’s attention off the road more than static ones. Another study by Meuleners et al. (2020) showed that electronic advertising billboards affect driving performance negatively in aspects of mean speed, speed variability, variability in lane position, high and very high-risk headway, and visual fixations. This suggest that the presence of billboards could increase crash risk. As drivers switch their attention to adverts, they pay less attention towards speed control, steering wheel position and position of their car in relation to positions of other driving cars which may put a driver in an unexpected danger.

Drivers can also be affected by what is happening inside the vehicle. It has been shown that when a secondary task is added during driving, our neural system redirects its attentional resources away from visual processing, increasing the possibility of incorrect, dangerous, or risky behavioural responses (Palmiero et al., 2019). The interesting part of this finding is that even when a secondary task is not associated with driving, meaning it relies on a separate cortical area, changes in neural activity occur even though driving behaviour is not affected. This means that even though there are no significant changes in some indices of driving behaviour, our visual attention is sacrificed while we are engaged in distracted driving. This connects to the phenomenon of inattention blindness which occurs when a driver is simply attending to something else and this can relate directly to specific road accidents, especially among novice drivers (Palmiero et al., 2019). Furthermore, secondary tasks related shift of attention can be seen in relative frequency of gaze fixations. It was observed that secondary tasks increase the frequency of fixations straight ahead of a road but decrease them to the right side of the visual field (Ringhand et al., 2022). This is especially concerning having in mind that 13 % of car crashes in Slovenia occur due to disregarding the right of way (Slovenian Traffic Safety Agency, 2023) which is directly associated with overlooking the information on the right side of driver’s visual field.

Ears Putting a Brake on our Driving Performance – Why Auditory Stimuli Are Important

The processing of auditory information can detrimentally affect driving performance, as indicated by numerous studies. These studies have shown that it can lead to reduced awareness of nearby vehicles (Gugerty & Tirre, 2000), delayed responses to traffic signs (Strayer et al., 2003), and negatively impact overall driving (Chaparro et al., 2005).

On the one hand, in visually stressful driving settings, noises that both draw attention and provide valuable information may reduce the risk of visual overload (Fagerlönn & Alm, 2010). Wang et al. (2017) conducted a simulator driving study. They developed a prototype of a 3D sound system, which aimed to provide relevant advisory information regarding road users in the vicinity of driver’s own vehicle. This information included the direction in which the road users moved and their risk level in terms of time-distance, which measures how long it takes for a road user to reach a specific point or to cover a certain distance while in motion, to a potential collision. There are several key takeaways from this study. Firstly, spatial sound cues, which are sounds coming from different directions, work best when you are driving in uncomplicated situations with just one person or vehicle in front or to the sides of the road. However, in more complex driving scenarios where there is a lot happening, these sound cues can be confusing. To make them more effective in such situations, it is a good practice to complement them with visual information or images. Furthermore, it is beneficial to provide drivers with both types of sounds – one for giving advice or guidance, like helpful tips, and another for warning them about potential dangers on the road. Finally, it is important to choose relaxing and pleasing sounds for advising information that will not annoy or divert the driver. This approach can enhance the overall driving experience and safety (Wang et. al., 2017).

On the other hand, noises that do not convey essential driving information may compromise one’s driving safety. Unexpectedly, talking on a hands-free phone while driving can be just as dangerous as talking on a handheld one, yet listening to the radio while driving does not significantly reduce performance. This shows that phone calls require more than just voice production in terms of cognitive demands (Strayer & Johnston, 2001). Furthermore, it has been found that phone calls considerably affect driving behaviour when compared to interactions with passengers (Drews et al., 2009). This distinction might be the result of the natural attention-sharing that occurs between drivers and passengers as they adjust their discussion to the flow of traffic. Phone talks, on the other hand, lack this shared attention, which raises the danger of auditory distraction, particularly when there is heavy traffic, and the driver needs to keep their concentration on the road (Gherri & Eimer, 2010).

However, in modern cars, sound is often used to alert the driver to potentially dangerous conditions or to complement the visual display with auditory feedback. Yet, using auditory displays raises several concerns. Continuous or repetitive sounds, while effective at grabbing users’ attention, can be tiring and reduce alertness. Furthermore, extraneous noises may interfere with or mask the system’s sound (Walker et al., 2013).

It is Just Working Memory Having Some Back-Seat Drivers – Interaction of Visual and Auditory Stimuli

Since distractions and interference are ubiquitous in today’s driving situations, studies on driving attention often attribute certain dangerous driving behaviours to limitations in working memory (WM), where cognitive load diverts attention away from task-relevant information and depletes attentional capacity (Wood et al., 2016). Further, the negative impacts of distraction on driving efficiency are due to an imbalance between the WM resources allocated to the driving task and the WM resources needed by that task (Rosenbloom, 2006).

The theory of multiple resources (Wickens et al., 2002) posits that interference between the concurrent processing of stimuli or activities is expected to be higher when these stimuli or activities are highly similar or utilize the same mental resources. Thus, it follows that secondary visual stimuli should be more challenging to inhibit compared to additional auditory stimuli in a driving context (Sodnik et al., 2008). But there are also significant consequences from talking to other passengers or using a cell phone (Strayer & Johnston, 2016). Even using in-car technology to communicate can be troublesome (Caird et al., 2018). The reason these things are problematic might be that they are quite complicated (Patten et al., 2004; Schweizer et al., 2013). Vanderhaegen et al. (2019), emphasized that attentional dissonance plays a critical role in performance disruptions and is linked to attentional failure effects. It arises when cognitive conflicts lead to stimuli competing for attention. According to Wickens’ theory (2002), when one thing you are doing takes up all your cognitive resources and leaves none for something else, it can cause issues. Even though talking on the phone or having a conversation in the car uses different brain skills than driving, this idea of running out of cognitive resources could help explain why they are so distracting and unsafe (Karthaus et al., 2018). According to Lavie’s Load theory (Lavie et al., 2004; Lavie, 2010), the ability to maintain goal-directed behaviour, like driving, in the midst of interference, for example, distraction, depends on available WM capacity (Engle, 2010; Pratt et al., 2011). Driving while using a hands-free phone, for example, increased the risk of missing or responding slowly to virtual traffic signals (Strayer et al., 2003; Treffner & Barrett, 2004).

Carpool of Senses – Why None of the Senses Should be Hitchhiking

The driver’s limited attentional resources are already severely challenged by additional tasks, which can lead to significant difficulties in urgent, unusual, and complex situations (Fagerlönn & Alm, 2010). It is crucial to design in-car information systems that do not excessively disrupt drivers’ capabilities, thus alleviating the risk of unsafe driving behaviours.

It is true that all additional distractors can have negative consequences for our driving performance, but we still need to get informed about the conditions of our car and this information is available to us through in-car information systems. They are usually visually presented in-car information systems which may not be ideal for enhancing driving safety. According to research, greater visual load might negatively impact lane keeping (Engström et al., 2005) and detection abilities (Recarte & Nunes, 2000; 2003). However, studies have also shown that performing non-visual tasks can jeopardize one’s safety (e.g., Anstey et al., 2005; Kountouriotis & Merat, 2016). Therefore, for safety reasons, interfaces that enable the driver to keep their eyes on the road, such as mixed visual and auditory solutions, may be more appropriate.

All Studies Lead to Rome… Or do they? – Current Studies Raise Interesting Questions

Driving studies researching visual and auditory stimuli mostly split into two categories: those done on driving simulators (Brome et al., 2021; Fort et al., 2010; Karthaus et al., 2018; Meuleners et al., 2020; Ringhand et al., 2022; Sodnik et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021) and those done in real driving experience (Barrett, 2004; Chaparro et al., 2005; Drews et al., 2009; Gershon et al., 2017; Klauer et al., 2014; Recarte & Nunes, 2000; Treffner & Rosenbloom, 2006) (some studies include both (e. g., Engström et al., 2005)). The latter were performed with participants driving their own or borrowed vehicles on closed roads or public roads. From a perspective of ecological validity, the ones in which participants drove their own cars on public roads obviously have the highest ecological validity, however, there is not a lot of studies going down that path due to organisational difficulties.

Regarding the measuring techniques used, some studies involved eye-tracking data collection (Brome et al., 2021; Ringhand et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2021), others focused on electrical activity of the brain-waves, such as EEG (Brome et al., 2021; Karthaus et al., 2018) and event-related potential (ERP) (Gherri & Eimer, 2010), while others used functional neuroimaging techniques, such as fMRI (Schweizer et al., 2013) and MEG (Fort et al., 2010). While in-car driving studies are limited in terms of space availability for different measuring techniques, the driving simulator ones can be performed using various techniques. In their review on neural correlates of simulated driving, Palmiero and colleagues (2019) suggest that EEG is not a desirable method for such studies, although widely used, due to its very low spatial resolution. They suggest fMRI and MEG studies are preferable due to their relatively satisfactory spatial and temporal resolution. Both fMRI and MEG have further limitations in terms of financial availability of their equipment. This raises an interesting question on how to measure real-time driving behaviour effectively in terms of limitations and benefits of various measuring techniques.

On the other hand, the question that arises with current simulator studies is to what extent can we make a simulated task as natural as possible. It is important to consider that driving is not a step-by-step procedure, but rather a greatly dynamic process changing with each move. As it is such a variable phenomenon, a holistic approach to researching must be undertaken, and driving simulators might not be able to replicate all natural occurrings which are of immense importance in understanding driving behaviour.

Future Aspects Down the Road

Also, with each driver’s unique characteristics, the approach to determining the effects of visual and auditory distractors and their interference could be personalised. In that sense, some research is already focused on how to optimize existing visual and auditory stimuli in the cars of drivers. For example, in recent years, in-vehicle panels got quite dense in the information they convey, so they pose a threat of additional piling up of stimuli and cause visual workload in our cognitive capacity. Therefore, it is important to investigate how icon sizes can facilitate driving experience (Sun et al., 2023). To overcome shortcomings of visual and auditory stimuli overload, modern car designers and researchers are also increasingly taking into consideration other modalities. Haptic stimuli, both tactile and kinaesthetic, are of a special interest as their potential for driving assistance and warning signalling is quite broad (from steering wheel and pedals to even seats) (Gaffary & Lécuyer, 2018).

Furthermore, there is a whole wide spectrum of drivers’ characteristics that account for a lot of variability among drivers. Just for a sense, it has been shown that novice drivers (who are usually teens) are more prone to engage in secondary tasks (Klauer et al., 2014). Furthermore, if they are owners of their vehicle, they are 50 % more likely to engage in secondary tasks than those who share a vehicle with another family member, and if they are driving alone, the likelihood of secondary tasks engagement is doubled (Gershon et al., 2017). As we can see, various modulating and moderating characteristics contribute to a driver’s shift of attention off road and to secondary tasks and some populations of drivers are even more at risk for consequently limited capability of correct interpretation of driving-related stimuli. How to address these questions is a rather astonishing remark for future research.

Arriving at the Final Destination – Conclusion

In the present article, we have focused on distracted driving imposed by visual and auditory stimuli. We can roughly divide them into primary tasks, necessary for safe driving (such as observing road signalling, getting in-vehicle visual and auditory information on driving warnings) and secondary tasks (such as observing billboard advertisements, taking a phone call, having a conversation with a passenger). Both visual and auditory stimuli can negatively affect our driving performance in various terms and there is a huge variability of studies trying to investigate these phenomena. Our final blinker for indicating the direction for future research lanes would highlight the concept that the complexity of stimuli, either visual or auditory, might be different for different drivers and this should be taken into consideration. For example, can listening to an unknown song that draws one’s attention be more of a distraction than a well-known song that a driver enjoys and hums to? Or a song that one dislikes? What happens when emotions get involved in our perception of stimuli? Can advertisements that target our interests affect us more than the ones that are not targeted to our shopping preferences? Let these questions fuel future research.

Literature

Anstey, K. J., Wood, J., Lord, S., & Walker, J. G. (2005). Cognitive, sensory and physical factors enabling driving safety in older adults. Clinical Psychology Review, 25(1), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2004.07.008

Brome, R., Awad, M., & Moacdieh, N. M. (2021). Roadside digital billboard advertisements: Effects of static, transitioning, and animated designs on drivers’ performance and attention. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 83, 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.10.013

Caird, J. K., Simmons, S. M., Wiley, K., Johnston, K. A., & Horrey, W. J. (2018). Does talking on a cell phone, with a passenger, or dialing affect driving performance? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. Human Factors, 60(1), 101–133.https://doi.org/10.1177/001872081774814

Cantin, V., Lavallière, M., Simoneau, M., & Teasdale, N. (2009). Mental workload when driving in a simulator: Effects of age and driving complexity. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(4), 763–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.03.019

Chaparro, A., Wood, J. M., & Carberry, T. (2005). Effects of age and auditory and visual dual tasks on closed-road driving performance. Optometry and Vision Science, 82(8), 747–754. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.opx.0000174724.74957.45

Dingus, T. A., Guo, F., Lee, S., Antin, J. F., Perez, M., Buchanan-King, M., & Hankey, J. (2016). Driver crash risk factors and prevalence evaluation using naturalistic driving data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(10), 2636–2641. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1513271113

Drews, F. A., Pasupathi, M., & Strayer, D. L. (2008). Passenger and cell phone conversations in simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(4), 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013119

Edwards, J. D., Lister, J. J., Lin, F. R., Andel, R., Brown, L., & Wood, J. M. (2017). Association of hearing impairment and subsequent driving mobility in older adults. The Gerontologist, 57(4), 767–775. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw009

Engle, R. W. (2010). Role of working-memory capacity in cognitive control. Current Anthropology, 51(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1086/650572

Engström, J., Johansson, E., & Östlund, J. (2005). Effects of visual and cognitive load in real and simulated motorway driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8(2), 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2005.04.012

Fagerlönn, J., & Alm, H. (2010). Auditory signs to support traffic awareness. IET Intelligent Transport Systems, 4(4), 262. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-its.2009.0144

Fort, A., Martin, R., Jacquet-Andrieu, A., Combe-Pangaud, C., Foliot, G., Daligault, S., & Delpuech, C. (2010). Attentional demand and processing of relevant visual information during simulated driving: A MEG study. Brain Research, 1363, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2010.09.094

Gaffary, Y., & Lécuyer, A. (2018). The use of haptic and tactile information in the car to improve driving safety: A review of Current Technologies. Frontiers in ICT, 5. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fict.2018.00005

Gershon, P., Zhu, C., Klauer, S. G., Dingus, T., & Simons-Morton, B. (2017). Teens’ distracted driving behavior: Prevalence and predictors. Journal of Safety Research, 63, 157–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2017.10.002

Gherri, E., & Eimer, M. (2011). Active listening impairs visual perception and selectivity: An ERP study of auditory dual-task costs on visual attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(4), 832–844. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21468

Gugerty, L. J., & Tirre, W. C. (2000). Individual differences in situation awareness. In M. R., Endsley, & D. J., Garland (Eds.), Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement (pp. 249–276).

Karthaus, M., Wascher, E., & Getzmann, S. (2018). Effects of visual and acoustic distraction on driving behavior and EEG in young and older car drivers: A driving simulation study. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 10, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2018.00420

Kimura, M., Kimura, K. in Takeda, Y. (2022). Assessment of driver’s attentional resource allocation to visual, cognitive, and action processing by brain and eye signals. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 86, 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2022.02.009

Klauer, S. G., Guo, F., Simons-Morton, B. G., Ouimet, M. C., Lee, S. E., & Dingus, T. A. (2014). Distracted driving and risk of road crashes among novice and experienced drivers. The New England Journal of Medicine, 370(1), 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1204142

Kountouriotis, G. K., & Merat, N. (2016). Leading to distraction: Driver distraction, lead car, and road environment. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 89, 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.12.027

Lavie, N. (2010). Attention, distraction, and cognitive control under load. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410370295

Lavie, N., Hirst, A., de Fockert, J. W., & Viding, E. (2004). Load Theory of Selective Attention and Cognitive Control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(3), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.339

Lee, J. D., Young, K. L., & Regan, M. A. (Eds). (2008). Driver distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation. CRC press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420007497

Meuleners, L., Roberts, P., & Fraser, M. (2020). Identifying the distracting aspects of electronic advertising billboards: A driving simulation study. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 145, 105710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105710

Palmiero, M., Piccardi, L., Boccia, M., Baralla, F., Cordellieri, P., Sgalla, R., Guidoni, U., & Giannini, A. M. (2019). Neural correlates of simulated driving while performing a secondary task: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01045

Patten, C. J., Kircher, A., Östlund, J., & Nilsson, L. (2004). Using mobile telephones: cognitive workload and attention resource allocation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 36(3), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(03)00014-9

Pratt, N., Willoughby, A., & Swick, D. (2011). Effects of working memory load on visual selective attention: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 57. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00057

Recarte, M. A., & Nunes, L. M. (2000). Effects of verbal and spatial-imagery tasks on eye fixations while driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.6.1.31

Recarte, M. A., & Nunes, L. M. (2003). Mental workload while driving: Effects on visual search, discrimination, and decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9(2), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.9.2.119

Ringhand, M., Siebke, C., Bäumler, M., & Petzoldt, T. (2022). Approaching intersections: Gaze behavior of drivers depending on traffic, intersection type, driving maneuver, and secondary task involvement. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 91, 116–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2022.09.010

Rosenbloom, T. (2006). Driving performance while using cell phones: An observational study. Journal of Safety Research, 37(2), 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2005.11.007

Schömig, N., & Metz, B. (2013). Three levels of situation awareness in driving with secondary tasks. Safety Science, 56, 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.05.029

Schweizer, T. A., Kan, K., Hung, Y., Tam, F., Naglie, G., & Graham, S. J. (2013). Brain activity during driving with distraction: an immersive fMRI study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 53. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00053

Shi, C., Yan, F., Zhang, J., Yu, H., Peng, F., & Yan, L. (2023). Right superior frontal involved in distracted driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 93, 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2023.01.010

Slovenian Traffic Safety Agency. (2023). Safety Analysis and Review in 2022. https://www.avp-rs.si/stanje-prometne-varnosti-2022-znani-so-uradni-podatki/

Sodnik, J., Dicke, C., Tomažič, S., & Billinghurst, M. (2008). A user study of auditory versus visual interfaces for use while driving. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(5), 318–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.11.001

Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9(1), 23–32.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.9.1.23

Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone. Psychological Science, 12(6), 462–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.0038

Sun, H., Tang, L., Chen, L., Guo, Y., Ge, Y., & Qu, W. (2023). Optimizing icon sizes on in-vehicle panels to minimize perception time and prevent driving crashes. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2233132

Treffner, P. J., & Barrett, R. (2004). Hands-free mobile phone speech while driving degrades coordination and control. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 7(4-5), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2004.09.002

Vanderhaegen, F., Wolff, M., & Mollard, R. (2019). Synchronization of stimuli with heart rate: a new challenge to control attentional dissonances. Automation Challenges of Socio‐technical Systems, 81, 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119644576.ch1

Vilchez, J. L. (2018). Representativity and univocity of traffic signs and their effect on trajectory movement in a driving-simulation task: Regulatory signs. Journal of Safety Research, 66, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2018.06.007

Walker, B. N., Lindsay, J., Nance, A., Nakano, Y., Palladino, D. K., Dingler, T., & Jeon, M. (2013). Spearcons (speech-based earcons) improve navigation performance in advanced auditory menus. Human Factors, 55(1), 157–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208124505

Wang, M., Liao, Y., Lyckvi, S. L., & Chen, F. (2020). How drivers respond to visual vs. auditory information in advisory traffic information systems. Behaviour & Information Technology, 39(12), 1308–1319. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1667439

Wang, M., Lyckvi, S. L., Chen, C., Dahlstedt, P., & Chen, F. (2017). Using advisory 3D sound cues to improve drivers’ performance and situation awareness. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2814–2825). https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025634

Wickens, C. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220210123806

Wickens, C. D., Hollands, J. G., Banbury, S. & Parasuraman, R. (2015). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315665177

Wood, G., Hartley, G., Furley, P. A., & Wilson, M. R. (2016). Working memory capacity, visual attention and hazard perception in driving. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(4), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.04.009

Zhang, Y., Ma, J., Pan, C., & Chang, R. (2021). Effects of automation trust in drivers’ visual distraction during automation. PLoS ONE, 16(9), e0257201. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257201