EFFECT OF AUDITORY DISTRACTION ON HAND AND FOOT REACTION TIME AMONG AGEING MALAYSIAN AUTOMOBILE DRIVERS
The involvement of ageing drivers in traffic accidents were reported but little cited on the severity of auditory driving distractions. Driving distraction contributes to increases in reaction time which can lead to safety traffic risks. Thus, in this study, hand and foot reaction times were measured in response to different distractions within the identical simulated driving route. The task varies in a controlled setting where soundless distractions were present, Comfortable Loudness Level (CLL), Uncomfortable Loudness Level (ULL) auditory distractions, and phone call distraction. Participants were among 40 Malaysian driving license holders consists of 57.5% males and 42.5% females with age mean, (M=51.83, SD=14.058). Results indicated that both hand and foot reaction time were shortest for CLL and longest during phone call. Ageing male scored shortest hand reaction time of 1.15s during CLL distraction. For foot reaction time, ageing male scores shortest of 0.92s for both CLL and no distractions. Pearson’s coefficient of correlation shows r>0.5. The results indicated hand reaction time was affected by foot reaction time (r=0.665), was significantly more for foot when compared with hand, could be because of difference in nerve conduction velocity and movement time of the hand when compared with that of foot.
2. Anderson, E., Bierman, C., Franko, J., & Zelko, A. 2012, The Effects of Audio and Visual Distractions on Reaction Time.
3. Dixit, V. V., Chand, S., Nair, D. J., Payre, W., Cestac, J., Delhomme, P.,Koppa, R. 2014, Autonomous Vehicles: Disengagements, Accidents and Reaction Time.
4. Miles, D. E., & Johnson, G. L. 2013, Aggressive Driving Behaviors: Are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 6(2), 2013, pp 147–161.
5. De Waard, D., Van der Hulst, M., & Brookhuis, K. A. 1999, Elderly And Young Drivers’ Reaction To An In-Car Enforcement And Tutoring System, Applied Ergonomics, 30(2): 147–157.
6. Balakrishnan, G., Uppinakudru, G., Singh, G. G., Bangera, S., Raghavendra, A. D., & Thangavel, D. 2014, A Comparative Study on Visual Choice Reaction Time for Different Colors in Females.
7. Magister, T., Batista, M., Krulec, R., & Bogdanović, L. 2006, Measurement Of The Driver Response Time In The Simulated And Real Emergency Driving Situations. Promet - Traffic – Traffico, 18(1): 23–32.
8. Tsyganov, A, Machemehl, R., & Easa, S. 2005, Investigation of Driver Behaviour and Reactions in Traffic Safety Research. Proceedings, Annual Conference - Canadian Society for Civil Engineering
9. Bazilinskyy, P., & de Winter, J. 2015, Auditory Interfaces In Automated Driving : An International Survey. PeerJ Computer Science, 1(1):1–28.
10. Verdú, E., Ceballos, D., Vilches, J. J., & Navarro, X. 2000, Influence of Aging on Peripheral Nerve Function and Regeneration. Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System, 5(4):191–208.
11. Salvia, E., Petit, C., Champely, S., Chomette, R., Di Rienzo, F., & Collet, C. 2016, Effects of age and task load on drivers’ response accuracy and reaction time when responding to traffic lights. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
12. Pfister, M., Lue, J.-C. L., Stefanini, F. R., Falabella, P., Dustin, L., Koss, M. J., & Humayun, M. S. 2014, Comparison of Reaction Response Time between Hand and Foot Controlled Devices in Simulated Microsurgical Testing. BioMed Research International, 1–8.
13. Balakrishnan, G., Singh, G. G., Velkumary, S., Uppinakudru, G., Raghavendra, A. D., & Thangavel, D. 2013, Comparison Of Hand And Foot Reaction Times Among Females- A Methodological Study Using Recognition Auditory Reaction Time. International Journal of Current Research, 5(12):4272–4274.