Markus Tomzig , Johanna Wörle , Sebastian Gary , Martin Baumann , Alexandra Neukum
{"title":"自动驾驶中的策略性小睡--睡眠结构比小睡时间更能预测睡眠惰性。","authors":"Markus Tomzig , Johanna Wörle , Sebastian Gary , Martin Baumann , Alexandra Neukum","doi":"10.1016/j.aap.2024.107811","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>At higher levels of driving automation, drivers can nap during parts of the trip but must take over control in others. Awakening from a nap is marked by sleep inertia which is tackled by the NASA nap paradigm in aviation: Strategic on-flight naps are restricted to 40 min to avoid deep sleep and therefore sleep inertia. For future automated driving, there are currently no such strategies for addressing sleep inertia. Given the disparate requirements, it is uncertain whether the strategies derived from aviation can be readily applied to automated driving. Therefore, our study aimed to compare the effects of restricting the duration of nap opportunities following the NASA nap paradigm to the effects of sleep architecture on sleep inertia in takeover scenarios in automated driving.</div><div>In our driving simulator study, 24 participants were invited to sleep during three automated drives. They were awakened after 20, 40, or 60 min and asked to manually complete an urban drive. We assessed how napping duration, last sleep stage before takeover, and varying proportions of light, stable, and deep sleep influenced self-reported sleepiness, takeover times, and the number of driving errors.</div><div>Takeover times increased with nap duration, but sleepiness and driving errors did not. Instead, all measures were significantly influenced by sleep architecture. Sleepiness increased after awakening from light and stable sleep, and takeover times after awakening from light sleep. Takeover times also increased with higher proportions of stable sleep. The number of driving errors was significantly increased with the proportion of deep sleep and after awakenings from stable and deep sleep.</div><div>These results suggest that sleep architecture, not nap duration, is crucial for predicting sleep inertia. Therefore, the NASA nap paradigm is not suitable for driving contexts. Future driver monitoring systems should assess the sleep architecture to predict and prevent sleep inertia.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":6926,"journal":{"name":"Accident; analysis and prevention","volume":"209 ","pages":"Article 107811"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Strategic naps in automated driving − Sleep architecture predicts sleep inertia better than nap duration\",\"authors\":\"Markus Tomzig , Johanna Wörle , Sebastian Gary , Martin Baumann , Alexandra Neukum\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.aap.2024.107811\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>At higher levels of driving automation, drivers can nap during parts of the trip but must take over control in others. Awakening from a nap is marked by sleep inertia which is tackled by the NASA nap paradigm in aviation: Strategic on-flight naps are restricted to 40 min to avoid deep sleep and therefore sleep inertia. For future automated driving, there are currently no such strategies for addressing sleep inertia. Given the disparate requirements, it is uncertain whether the strategies derived from aviation can be readily applied to automated driving. Therefore, our study aimed to compare the effects of restricting the duration of nap opportunities following the NASA nap paradigm to the effects of sleep architecture on sleep inertia in takeover scenarios in automated driving.</div><div>In our driving simulator study, 24 participants were invited to sleep during three automated drives. They were awakened after 20, 40, or 60 min and asked to manually complete an urban drive. We assessed how napping duration, last sleep stage before takeover, and varying proportions of light, stable, and deep sleep influenced self-reported sleepiness, takeover times, and the number of driving errors.</div><div>Takeover times increased with nap duration, but sleepiness and driving errors did not. Instead, all measures were significantly influenced by sleep architecture. Sleepiness increased after awakening from light and stable sleep, and takeover times after awakening from light sleep. Takeover times also increased with higher proportions of stable sleep. The number of driving errors was significantly increased with the proportion of deep sleep and after awakenings from stable and deep sleep.</div><div>These results suggest that sleep architecture, not nap duration, is crucial for predicting sleep inertia. Therefore, the NASA nap paradigm is not suitable for driving contexts. Future driver monitoring systems should assess the sleep architecture to predict and prevent sleep inertia.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6926,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accident; analysis and prevention\",\"volume\":\"209 \",\"pages\":\"Article 107811\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accident; analysis and prevention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457524003567\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ERGONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accident; analysis and prevention","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457524003567","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ERGONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Strategic naps in automated driving − Sleep architecture predicts sleep inertia better than nap duration
At higher levels of driving automation, drivers can nap during parts of the trip but must take over control in others. Awakening from a nap is marked by sleep inertia which is tackled by the NASA nap paradigm in aviation: Strategic on-flight naps are restricted to 40 min to avoid deep sleep and therefore sleep inertia. For future automated driving, there are currently no such strategies for addressing sleep inertia. Given the disparate requirements, it is uncertain whether the strategies derived from aviation can be readily applied to automated driving. Therefore, our study aimed to compare the effects of restricting the duration of nap opportunities following the NASA nap paradigm to the effects of sleep architecture on sleep inertia in takeover scenarios in automated driving.
In our driving simulator study, 24 participants were invited to sleep during three automated drives. They were awakened after 20, 40, or 60 min and asked to manually complete an urban drive. We assessed how napping duration, last sleep stage before takeover, and varying proportions of light, stable, and deep sleep influenced self-reported sleepiness, takeover times, and the number of driving errors.
Takeover times increased with nap duration, but sleepiness and driving errors did not. Instead, all measures were significantly influenced by sleep architecture. Sleepiness increased after awakening from light and stable sleep, and takeover times after awakening from light sleep. Takeover times also increased with higher proportions of stable sleep. The number of driving errors was significantly increased with the proportion of deep sleep and after awakenings from stable and deep sleep.
These results suggest that sleep architecture, not nap duration, is crucial for predicting sleep inertia. Therefore, the NASA nap paradigm is not suitable for driving contexts. Future driver monitoring systems should assess the sleep architecture to predict and prevent sleep inertia.
期刊介绍：
Accident Analysis & Prevention provides wide coverage of the general areas relating to accidental injury and damage, including the pre-injury and immediate post-injury phases. Published papers deal with medical, legal, economic, educational, behavioral, theoretical or empirical aspects of transportation accidents, as well as with accidents at other sites. Selected topics within the scope of the Journal may include: studies of human, environmental and vehicular factors influencing the occurrence, type and severity of accidents and injury; the design, implementation and evaluation of countermeasures; biomechanics of impact and human tolerance limits to injury; modelling and statistical analysis of accident data; policy, planning and decision-making in safety.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
