U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Number 387 April 2010

Traffic Safety Facts

Traffic Tech – Technology Transfer Series

Training Novice Drivers to Shorten 

Distraction Time

Evidence in the field and on driving simulators suggests 

that when conducting secondary in-vehicle tasks, teen drivers are much more likely to glance inside the vehicle for long 

periods of time than are more experienced drivers. Such periods of distraction appear highly related to crashes and near 

crashes for drivers of all ages, but especially for teen drivers. 

Simply training drivers never to glance inside the vehicle, 

however, could be unsafe since glances at gauges and mirrors might actually serve to decrease crash risk. Also, given 

the large number of distractions in modern vehicles (e.g., 

radio/entertainment systems, cellular phones), it would 

be naive to think that drivers would voluntarily ignore the 

temptation to look away from the forward roadway while 

they are driving. This suggests the need for a training program that emphasizes the importance of minimizing distractions but also helps drivers learn to distribute the time that 

they do spend on in-vehicle tasks into more frequent and 

shorter glances instead of several long glances. Two studies are described here that document the development and 

evaluation of such a training program. 

Study 1: PC-Based Assessment Program

In Study 1, a personal-computer-based (PC-based) attention maintenance assessment program was developed, with 

attention maintenance defined as the ability to attend to the 

forward roadway while limiting long glances away from 

the roadway. An evaluation was conducted to determine if 

the program was capable of detecting differences in glance 

duration among younger and older drivers similar to those 

observed in previous field and simulator studies. This assessment program used an innovative approach (not an eye 

tracker) to determine if drivers were glancing away from the 

simulated roadway on the computer screen. 

As part of the study, novice and experienced drivers performed two tasks displayed on a computer screen. The 

computer screen was split in half horizontally to display the 

tasks. Only one task, however, could be viewed at a time. 

To complete the tasks, participants had to toggle between 

the two views. The task displayed at the top of the screen 

involved identifying vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists who 

posed a threat in a video recording of a drive down a local 

roadway. The task displayed on the bottom half of the computer screen required drivers to look for a street on a map. 

Once the scenario began, the video played continuously, 

but when the participant toggled to the map view, the top 

half (driving video) of the screen went black. Similarly, the 

bottom half of the screen (map view) went black when the 

participant toggled to the video view. When the participant 

toggled to the map view, the video continued and the participant missed hazards that emerged. The program recorded 

the frequency and duration participants viewed each task. 

In addition to simply looking at differences among younger 

and older drivers, a third group of young drivers received 

training before completing the PC-based assessment program. The trained drivers were taught to anticipate hazards 

using the Risk Awareness and Perception Training (RAPT) 

program. It was hypothesized that drivers who were more 

aware of risks would reduce the durations of their glances 

inside the vehicle. The results of Study 1 (see Figure 1) 

showed that the assessment program was able to differentiate between the attention maintenance skills of novice and 

experienced drivers with results similar to those found in 

field and simulator studies. The hazard anticipation training, 

however, did not improve the attention maintenance skills of 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

>.5

Younger-No RAPT Younger-RAPT Older

>1

>1.5

>2

>2.5>3

>3.5>4>4.5>5>5.5

>6

>6.5>7

>7.5>8

>8.5

Duration of Glance

Percentage of Glances

Figure 1. Percentage of Glances Greater Than Time 

Durations for Older, Younger RAPT and Younger 

No-RAPT Participants
young drivers, which led to the development of training that 

specifically addresses attention maintenance issues.

Study 2: Attention Maintenance Skills Training

In Study 2, a new training program that focused solely on 

attention maintenance skills was developed and evaluated. 

The Focused Concentration and Attention Learning (FOCAL) 

program was created to teach novice drivers how to reduce 

their glance durations to less than 2 seconds while still performing an in-vehicle task accurately. The training was tied, 

in part, to the results of the attention maintenance assessment 

program. Fifteen randomly assigned participants completed 

FOCAL training, and 15 completed control training. The control training program took about the same amount of time 

to complete as FOCAL. Participants in the control training 

group were instructed on the meaning of road signs, signals, 

and pavement markings. 

As a pretest, participants completed the assessment program 

used in Study 1 to get a measure of willingness to look away 

from the roadway and to give feedback during training. 

After completing the assessment program, participants taking FOCAL training saw the following sequence of events: 

1. A video from the pre-test that went blank when the participant toggled to the map task; 

2. A video from the pre-test that went blank when the 

participant toggled to the map task accompanied by an 

on-screen timer showing how long the participant looked 

away from the video; 

3. Videos that displayed the map for 3 seconds whenever the 

participant wanted to see the map, after which the display 

automatically returned to the video view; 

4. Videos that displayed the map for 3 seconds, followed by a loud 

tone if the map remained on for more than 3 seconds; and

5. Videos that displayed for 2 seconds. 

After training, the assessment program was re-administered 

to see if FOCAL training effectively reduced long glances 

away from the roadway video. 

Results

A comparison of the control group and training group indicated that the two groups had similar glance patterns prior 

to training. In contrast, participants trained with FOCAL 

(Figure 2) showed significant reductions in the percentage of 

longer glances (e.g., greater than 2 seconds) compared to the 

control group.

Moreover, the distribution of glances did not change for the 

control group before and after training. In a separate analysis, the total time that the FOCAL group spent on the map 

task after training did not differ from the total time that the 

control group spent on the map task after training. This result 

indicates that the FOCAL training group was taking more 

frequent, but shorter glances and suggests that those who 

received FOCAL training were not ignoring the map task to 

complete the roadway task. 

Discussion

Study 1 suggests that the assessment program may be a 

valid means to measure attention maintenance because differences among older and younger drivers were found, and 

the differences were similar to previous studies. The results 

of Study 2 indicate that the PC-based training program led 

to a reduction in long glance durations to the surrogate invehicle task used for the assessment program. These studies 

provide support for testing the effects of the training using a 

driving simulator and a test course as the test environments 

rather than a PC.

How to Order

To order the interim technical report titled PC-Based Attention Maintenance Training: Development and Evaluation 

of a PC-Based Training Program (56 pages), prepared by 

Dunlap and Associates, Inc., write to the Office of Behavioral 

Safety Research, NHTSA, NTI-132, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 

SE., Washington, DC 20590, fax 202-366-7394, or download from www.nhtsa.gov. Ian Reagan was the Contracting 

Officer’s Technical Representative for this project. 

TRAFFIC TECH is a publication to disseminate information about 

traffic safety programs, including evaluations, innovative programs, and new publications. Feel free to copy it as you wish. If you 

would like to receive a copy, contact Angela H. Eichelberger, Ph.D., 

Editor, fax 202-366-7394, e-mail: angela.eichelberger@dot.gov.

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., NTI-132

Washington, DC 20590

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

>.5

pretest posttest

>1

>1.5

>2

>2.5>3>3.5>4>4.5>5>5.5

>6

>6.5>7>7.5>8

% of glance

Focal Training

Figure 2. Distribution of Glance Durations Before and After 

Focal Training