TY - JOUR
T1 - The effects of training impulse control on simulated driving
AU - Hatfield, Julie
AU - Williamson, Ann
AU - Kehoe, E. James
AU - Lemon, James
AU - Arguel, Amaël
AU - Prabhakharan, Prasannah
AU - Job, R. F.Soames
PY - 2018/10
Y1 - 2018/10
N2 - There is growing interest in young driver training that addresses age-related factors, including incompletely developed impulse control. Two studies investigated whether training of response inhibition can reduce risky simulated driving in young drivers (aged 16–24 years). Each study manipulated aspects of response inhibition training then assessed transfer of training using simulated driving measures including speeding, risky passing, and compliance with traffic controls. Study 1 (n = 65) used a Go/No-go task, Stop Signal Task and a Collision Detection Task. Designed to promote engagement, learning, and transfer, training tasks were driving-relevant and adaptive (i.e. difficulty increased as performance improved), included performance feedback, and were distributed over five days. Control participants completed matching “filler” tasks. Performance on trained tasks improved with training, but there was no significant improvement in simulated driving. Study 2 enhanced response inhibition training using Go/No-go and SST tasks, with clearer performance feedback, and 10 days of training. Control participants completed testing only, in order to avoid any possibility of training response inhibition in the filler tasks. Again performance on trained tasks improved, but there was no evidence of transfer of training to simulated driving. These findings suggest that although training of sufficient interest and duration can improve response inhibition task performance, a training schedule that is likely to be acceptable to the public does not result in improvements in simulated driving. Further research is needed to investigate whether response inhibition training can improve risky driving in the context of real-world motivations for risky driving.
AB - There is growing interest in young driver training that addresses age-related factors, including incompletely developed impulse control. Two studies investigated whether training of response inhibition can reduce risky simulated driving in young drivers (aged 16–24 years). Each study manipulated aspects of response inhibition training then assessed transfer of training using simulated driving measures including speeding, risky passing, and compliance with traffic controls. Study 1 (n = 65) used a Go/No-go task, Stop Signal Task and a Collision Detection Task. Designed to promote engagement, learning, and transfer, training tasks were driving-relevant and adaptive (i.e. difficulty increased as performance improved), included performance feedback, and were distributed over five days. Control participants completed matching “filler” tasks. Performance on trained tasks improved with training, but there was no significant improvement in simulated driving. Study 2 enhanced response inhibition training using Go/No-go and SST tasks, with clearer performance feedback, and 10 days of training. Control participants completed testing only, in order to avoid any possibility of training response inhibition in the filler tasks. Again performance on trained tasks improved, but there was no evidence of transfer of training to simulated driving. These findings suggest that although training of sufficient interest and duration can improve response inhibition task performance, a training schedule that is likely to be acceptable to the public does not result in improvements in simulated driving. Further research is needed to investigate whether response inhibition training can improve risky driving in the context of real-world motivations for risky driving.
KW - young drivers
KW - novice drivers
KW - driver training
KW - driver education
KW - impulsivity
KW - response inhibition
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049342058&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/LP100200574
U2 - 10.1016/j.aap.2018.06.012
DO - 10.1016/j.aap.2018.06.012
M3 - Article
C2 - 29966858
AN - SCOPUS:85049342058
VL - 119
SP - 1
EP - 15
JO - Accident Analysis and Prevention
JF - Accident Analysis and Prevention
SN - 0001-4575
ER -