Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Since the original development of driver distraction guidelines, scientific understanding of driver workload, attention threading, situation awareness, and the influence of driving context has significantly evolved—driven largely by insights from naturalistic driving studies and other research. Concurrently, vehicle technologies have advanced, integrating new forms of internal and external sensing, increased computational power, larger and often multiple screens, multi-modal interfaces, and feedback systems. This paper reviews and builds upon prior research and guidelines, particularly those coming out of the U.S., as that is the background of the majority of the authors, to propose a new conceptual framework for attention support. The framework, developed through a pre-competitive collaboration between academic and industry partners promotes an updated, attention-centric approach to the design, validation, and evaluation of driver-vehicle interfaces aimed at enhancing safety and the driving experience. Central to this approach is the real-time assessment of whether the driver's attention is appropriately aligned with situational demands and, if necessary, providing support. By leveraging emerging technologies, the framework not only fosters the rebuilding of situationally relevant knowledge and readiness to respond but also provides timely support when a driver's attention is insufficient for the current driving demands. This work argues for the value of a necessary shift in emphasis from distraction prevention alone to broader consideration of driver attention support. It addresses attention deficits arising from multiple sources–including but not limited to, vehicle interfaces–and moves beyond earlier guidelines. The result is a more proactive, dynamic system, aligned with a Safe Systems Approach (adopted by the U.S. Department of Transportation and others) that shifts responsibility from solely changing behavior to supportive systems that recognize human fallibility and vulnerability.
Reimer et al. (Fri,) studied this question.