Collection and comparison of driver/passenger
physiologic and behavioural data in simulation and
on-road driving
Daniele Ruscio
Department of Psychology, i.Drive Laboratory
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Politecnico di
Milano
Milan, Italy
Dedy Ariansyah, Monica Bordegoni, Giandomenico
Caruso
Department of Mechanical Engineering, i.Drive Laboratory
Politecnico di Milano
Milan, Italy
AbstractThe i.Drive Lab has developed inter-disciplinary
methodology for the analysis and modelling of behavioral and
physiological responses related to the interaction between driver,
vehicle, infrastructure, and virtual environment. The present
research outlines the development of a validation study for the
combination of virtual and real-life research methodologies.
i.Drive driving simulator was set up to replicate the data
acquisition of environmental and physiological information
coming from an equipped i.Drive electric vehicle with same
sensors. i.Drive tests are focused on the identification of drivers
affective states that are able to define recurring situations and
psychophysical conditions that are relevant for road-safety and
drivers comfort. Results show that it is possible to combine
different research paradigms to collect low-level vehicle control
behavior and higher-level cognitive measures, in order to develop
data collection and elaboration for future mobility challenges.
Keywordsdriving assessment; physiological measures; virtual
reality simulator; test vehicle; on-road tests
I. INTRODUCTION
Modern driving simulators have reached levels of realism
and immersions that can provide very accurate driving
experience to drivers and, at the same time, grant to
researchers a precise measurement of driving behaviors across
different virtual scenarios, with solid internal validity. The use
of virtual simulations allows many applications both for traffic
control (e.g. measure the impact of signing and road marks on
driver performance) and for urban planning rules (e.g.
measure the impact of building distance from road or of lateral
sight in crossroads). All these types of measurement are
limited by survey costs in real environment and without virtual
simulation, it is also impossible to reason precisely on
Luca Bascetta, Alessandro Gabrielli, Matteo Matteucci
Department of Electronics Information and Bioengineering,
i.Drive Laboratory
Politecnico di Milano
Milan, Italy
Lorenzo Mussone
Department of Architecture, Built Environment and
Construction Engineering; i.Drive Laboratory
Politecnico di Milano
Milan, Italy
hypothetical scenarios, before the actual implementation.
However, the use of driving simulators rises several questions
about external validity of the results [1]. It could be questioned
if the virtual simplification of reality and the cognitive
awareness of being in a protected contest, could affect the type
of data gathered by simulator studies. An accurate validation
of data collected in real-life and virtual simulator, could
provide contextualized data that would provide a more certain
external validity to the research [2].
A. Collect Users Behaviors and Physiological Modifications
To measure and compare user behaviors and responses,
tests should be focused on the identification of drivers
affective states that are able to define recurring situations and
psychophysical conditions relevant for road-safety and
drivers comfort. The identification of which type of state can
be registered by psychological and physiological measures is
related not only to individual variability, but also to the type of
driving situation that the driver has to face. Simulator
validation studies have tended to assess speed and speed
adaptation [3], and lane keeping [4], in order to measure
relatively low-level vehicle control, like perceptual-motor
abilities. However, the driving task is a more complex
performance, that involves situation awareness, risk
perception, and a series of behavioral changes associated to
active controlling and decision-making situations, like
decision to adjust the speed, perform a driving maneuver like
overtaking or stopping at a pedestrian crossing [5]. Higher-
level cognitive measures, like frequency-domain measure of
heart rate variability [6] and electrodermal activity, are
valuable indexes to measure effort, workload [7], as well as
the situation awareness of experiencing Virtual vs. non-Virtual
Reality environments [8]. Therefore, a comparison of
behavioral and psycho-physiological data in virtual vs. real
scenario, provides valuable information on the way affective
states can be modelled during driving performances [9]. At the
same time, a comparison study could help to describe the
nature and the extent of relative-differences between drivers
during critical driving conditions, helping the modelling and
threshold definition of affective states in a validated safe
environment.
B. Absolute and Relative Validity of Driving Experience
The extent, to which the results of the simulation agree
exactly with real data in numerical terms, is commonly called
Absolute validity [10]. Absolute validity of driving simulator
is difficult to be reached because virtual simulations usually
do not include some important variables like vibration, sounds
and haptic and kinetics feedbacks that are used in real-life
driving by the drivers to determine a particular task. However,
for the investigation of driver behavior, absolute validity is not
a necessary and essential condition. Relative validity describes
the extent to which altering a factor in a simulation has the
same effect as in a real study, even if the numerical data does
not completely overlap. Relative validity is established when
the differences found between experimental conditions are in
the same direction and have similar or identical magnitude on
both systems [11]. For validation purposes, the data of a driver
in the simulator should be compared in specific situations, and
integrated with the data from interviews and indirect driving
parameters. The impact of the driver's perceived level of
realism or engagement during simulation can be recorded
looking at the variations in the driving behavior and
physiological responses. This information can contextualize
the nature and the extent of the relative-differences among
virtual and driving conditions, but it is not always easy to
record, gather and analyze those data together, to determine an
exhaustive collection and comparison of driver/passenger
physiologic and behavioral data.
C. Open Questions
Although many sensors are available off-the-shelf, only a
few can be used without affecting the subject performance to
generate reliable and trustworthy data. Contrary to a controlled
simulated situation, collecting data on field introduces several
confusing variables that should be taken into consideration.
First, the testing scenario in real-life environment is constantly
changing, and those changes affect not only the behavioral
responses (e.g. traffic congestions and interaction with other
vehicles), but also they impact the physiological data
acquisition, introducing temperature variability, noise artifacts
related to motion accelerations. Second, the data acquired in
real-life system require to be saved and organized in a
database so that can be easily retrieved and analyzed after the
acquisition. Since the amount of data, the dynamic structure of
data and that a loss of data of some sensors could compromise
the understanding. In addition comparison of the data
collected in simulation and on the real-life car, implies the
necessity to synchronize and timestamp all data channels, in
order to generate strings of data that can be coupled using the
same frequency and resolution, or using similar aggregate
interval. With the i.Drive Lab, we present a series of methods
implemented to perform validation and propose a guideline for
that will be the object of future works.
D. i.Drive Lab
The i.Drive Lab (Interaction between Driver, Road
Infrastructure, Vehicle, and Environment) has developed inter-
disciplinary competencies for the analysis and modelling of
behavioral aspects related to the interaction between driver,
vehicle, infrastructure, and environment in conventional or
autonomous vehicles, where the driver becomes, de facto, a
passenger (so the term driver refers to both driver and
passenger). The laboratory is composed of a fixed structural
component, based on a Virtual Realty simulator, and a mobile
component, based on an instrumented vehicle. The i.Drive
driving simulator is a fixed-based configuration, composed of
a set of vehicle control device. A steering wheel Porsche 911
GT3 RS v2 [12] with force feedback, gear shifter with
automatic transmission, and brake, gas, and clutch pedals are
mounted on a seating buck with minimal car mockup as
shown in Fig. 1. The construction of seating buck allows the
adjustment of seat height, steering wheel height, and the
distance of steering wheel and pedals from the driver. Driving
simulation is developed to provide multisensory information
to recreate driving situation comparable to real-world driving
experience. The driving scene is displayed on three-screens,
32" size with a pixel resolution of 1920 x 1080 providing 36
degrees and 165 degrees on vertical and horizontal field of
view respectively. The engine sound and surrounding traffic
are spatialized by using Logitech Z-5500 [13], a 5.1 surround
sound system with subwoofer. Additionally, haptic cues such
as vibration and force feedback are simulated on the steering
wheel to aid driver in steering wheel management and heading
control. Virtual driving environment is built on the Unity
game engine [14] that is used to interface between vehicle
controls and multi-modality displays (visual, auditory, and
haptic feedback) in simulator system. The driving simulator is
also equipped with physiological sensors (Biograph Infinity
system from Thought Technology [15] to record
Electrodermal Activity, electrocardiography, respiration rate,
and blood volume pressure for identifying drivers state. These
sensors run in a client computer and communicate with Unity
software running in a server computer through TCP/IP.
Fig. 1. i.Drive Fixed-based driving simulator set up data acquisition.

Fig. 2. i.Drive electric vehicle set up for data acquisition.
This network allowed the synchronization of start and stop
data record across multiple data acquisition. Consequently,
physiological data can be analyzed easily in comparison with
vehicle data (e.g., speed, acceleration, lateral position, steering
angle, etc.) and driving scene recorded at 50 Hz and 30
frame/sec respectively based on our current system
implementation. Through this experimental setup, multi-
objective data can be obtained for post-drive analysis, and the
assessment of drivers virtual-task performance and behavior
could be done with respect to the corresponding physiological
state.
The i.Drive vehicle is an instrumented electric vehicle as
shown in Figure 2. The car is equipped with external sensors:
2 cameras, one pointed at the front of the car and one pointed
on the right side, a Velodyne LIDAR sensor with a GPS
mounted on the top of the car and a GPS used only for
synchronization. Inside there are 2 cameras, one pointed at the
driver and one pointed on the street and an IMU. In order to
acquire physiological data of the driver, i.Drive vehicle is
equipped with a Procom Infinity to record Electrodermal
Activity, electrocardiography, respiration rate, and blood
volume pressure. The acquiring and storing system has been
done using the ROS (Robot Operating System) framework.
This framework is well known and it is used in the robotics
field due to its high modularity. For the data storage part has
been used MongoDB, a NoSQL Database based on dynamic
documents (BSON) that provides very good performance and
a dynamic data model. The Prosilica cameras use a PTP
(Precision Time Protocol) protocol to synchronize each other
and with the PC clock. The Velodyne sensor uses its GPS to
synchronize its internal clock. All the other sensors used in the
i.Drive vehicle, have not a way to synchronize with the PC
clock and they are timestamped when they are acquired by the
PC. Since the GPS has a high clock precision, in order to
improve the overall synchronization precision of the sensors,
we added to the car another GPS. This GPS is used to keep the
PC clock synchronized by the NTP (Network Time Protocol)
protocol. To ensure that all the data is saved without any loss
of data, is necessary to use a NoSQL database. In particular
we are using a MongoDB database since provides very good
performance and a dynamic data model. Raw data coming
from the sensors that are saved in the MongoDb database can
be retrieved in a json or in a csv file. Since these data need to
be compared with the simulation data, they have to be
represented in the same way.
E. The Present Research
To set up the comparison between driver's behaviors and
psycho-physiological processes elicited in virtual vs. real-life
driving, the different data gathered by the i.Drive Lab need to
be selected and elaborated in order to provide information on
the comparison. For the present research, three significant
measures were selected for the initial comparison: Time
(seconds), Speed (Mean and Standard Deviation) and
Electrodermal Activity (Reactivity scores compared to
baseline). Previous research has found that Absolute Validity
for speed and time accuracy could be problematic, as drivers
in virtual environment tend to underestimate their own speed,
driving somewhat faster than intended [16]. At the same time,
Relative validity was well established for the mean speed
adopted in driving simulators, since it is commonly used for
predicting real-life results for road design process [17]. At the
same time, Electrodermal Activity is used as a discriminant
variable that produces different levels of Electrodermal
Activity in correspondence of different events [18], but it is
also a measure sensitive to the interaction in a virtual
environment vs. non-virtual environment [8]. The aim of the
present research is to set up a pilot test, to record the
variability of driver's behaviors (Time and Speed) and
physiological process (Electrodermal Activity) between the
two driving setting. We expect to validate the i.Drive Lab,
finding different absolute values of the dependent measure in
virtual vs. Real-life setting, but with a solid relative validity
between speed, time and Electrodermal Activity responses to
events, while driving in the i.Drive Simulator and while
driving in the i.Drive electric vehicle [19]. Based on the result
of this first step, an eventual adjustment of the set up could
guarantee the implementation of all the collected data in future
tests, to increase sample size and statistical relevance.
II. METHODOLOGY
A. Driving Scenario
To test the relative and absolute validity, a testing scenario
was selected for this study from an urban portion of the City
of Milan - Italy. The urban circuit was chosen to include a
wide range of turning radii and roadway widths that all
together require driver to adjust his behavior to safely and
efficiently face the circuit. The circuit is composed of a
sequence of N=15 coherent segments: 8 straights parts, 6 turns
and 1 roundabout. In order to compare the simulation data and
the car data, at first we converted the GPS coordinates of the
landmarks in time references that identify when the car was
passed on them. The beginning and end part of each segment
were isolated considering 15 Landmarks from Google Earth
coordinated, and were used to rebuild the same urban portion
of Milan also in the virtual simulator, using Unity 3D (Fig. 3).
With the time references of the landmarks, we were able to
retrieve the sensors data from the database and divide them in
parts as indicated by the landmarks. The drivers physiological
response and driving behavior was recorded during driving in
the real-life urban circuit and in the simulated virtual
environment, in order to compare the same behavior in the Correlation Coefficient it revealed a strong positive correlation
overall lap, but also in the sequence of the different 15 (R = 0.89) between the distribution of the times required to
landmarks and to understand how driver would adjust to the drive in each driving segments on the IDRIVE simulator, with
changes in the driving scene. the times required to drive the same segments while driving
the i.Drive real vehicle (Fig. 4). The non-parametric Mann
B. Test Protocol Whitney test confirmed that there were no significant
Pilot test was conducted on 1 male participant (Age = 42, differences, U = 148.00, p = .123, in the time required to drive
Driving experience = 24 years, average of 20 km/week). After each driving segment in virtual simulation (N = 15, Mean
consent form was signed, demographic information was Rank = 12.62) and the time in real-life setting (N = 15, Mean
collected, as long as an ad hoc battery of psychological tests to Rank = 17.71).
control participant state (Emotional Wheel), risk perception
levels (Risk Assessment Scale) and relationship with
technology (Technology Acceptance Scale) before the
beginning of the experiment. After physiological sensors were
applied to the participant, a resting baseline of 3 minutes was
recorded for physiological data. An adaptation scenario
followed to allow the driver to feel confident with both virtual
and real car. In the following experimental sessions,
participant was asked to drive through the 15 urban segments
for five times, first on the driving simulator and after in the
real-life vehicle. One experimenter was always present in the
front seat to control the correct data acquisition, and provide
the participant with eventual assistance about the number of
remaining laps. After the end of the virtual and real
experimental session, resting baseline were recorded as well as
subjective scores for the NASA-TLX scale [20] to compare
subjective scores for workload. A debriefing session ended the
protocol. To avoid sequence effects between simulator and
real-life driving, future data acquisition tests will follow a
randomized order.

C. Statistical Analysis
To test absolute and relative validity, comparison of the
driver behavior and physiological activation between the two
experimental settings for overall values was carried out for the
sequence of the different driving segments (N = 15). The
statistical analyses were performed on the second lap for both
the experimental settings, because it did not presented
interferences of other vehicles nor other road users. Statistical
descriptives (Mean and SD) were considered for the overall
time, speed and electrodermal activity. Pearson Correlation
Coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship among
the distribution of the dependent variables across the different
driving scene (N = 15) between the two experimental settings
(i.Drive virtual simulation, i.Drive real-life vehicle). The
non-parametrical Mann-Whitney U test was used to test the
presence / absence of significant differences between the null
hypothesis of random distribution of the dependent measures
(Time, Speed and Electrodermal Activity) and the observed
values in the two experimental settings.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Overall results of tested measures are reported in Table 1.
Fig. 3. Aerial view of the of the urban scenario tested for the comparison
A. Time Intervals between the real-life driving and the 3D virtual simulation, reconstructed in
The overall time required to drive one lap in the virtual Unity 3D using GPS coordinates to segment the different driving scenes. The
red pins represents the Landmarks used to define the 15 driving segments.
simulator was 94 seconds, while the overall time required in
the real-life lap was 138 seconds. Considering the Pearson
B. Cruise Speed
The mean speed kept in the entire lap in the virtual
simulator was 31.28 km/h (SD = 6.57), while the mean speed
kept in the real-life lap was 26.95 km/h (SD = 6.21). Pearson
Correlation Coefficient revealed a moderate positive
correlation (R = 0.60) between the distribution of the mean
speed kept in each driving segments on the IDRIVE simulator,
with the mean speed kept in the same segments while driving
the i.Drive real vehicle (Figure 4). The non-parametric Mann
Whitney test confirmed that there were no significant
differences, U = 108.00, p = .934, in the variance of the speed
kept to drive each driving segment in virtual simulation (N =
15, Mean Rank = 15.69) and the speed kept in each segment in
real-life setting (N = 15, Mean Rank = 15.35).

C. Electrodermal Activity
The mean value of Electrodermal Activity (EDA) recorded
during the entire lap in the virtual simulator shows an
increment of 3.38 (SD = .13) compared to the resting baseline,
while the Electrodermal Activity recorded during the entire
lap in the virtual simulator show an increment of 2.85 (SD =
.08) compared to resting baseline. Pearson Correlation
Coefficient revealed a moderate positive correlation (R = 0.60)
between the distribution of the mean speed kept in each
driving segments on the IDRIVE simulator, with the mean
speed kept in the same segments while driving the IDRIVE
real vehicle (Figure 4). The non-parametric MannWhitney
test reported that there was a significant differences, U =
174.00, p = .010, in the variance of Electrodermal Activity
recorded during each driving segment in virtual simulation (N
= 15, Mean Rank = 11.40) and the Electrodermal Activity
recoded in each segment of the real-life setting (N = 15, Mean
Rank = 19.60).

TABLE I. PERFOMANCE INDEXES

Fig. 4. Dependent variables measured across the experimental setting. No
Time (s) Speed (km/h) EDA significant differences for the distribution of Time and Speed between virtual
Driving driving and real-life driving. Significant differences were found for the
Segments i.Drive i.Drive i.Drive i.Drive i.Drive i.Drive
Sim. Car Sim. Car Sim. Car
Electrodermal Activity (EDA) between the two driving conditions.
Roundabout 11.5 15.0 18.1 18.8 0.16 -0.02
Straight AB 9.3 18.0 40.0 30.3 0.00 0.01 D. Discussion
Straight CD 2.4 3.0 29.6 21.7 -0.02 0.00 Results show that it is possible to acquire and elaborate
Straight EF 3.3 5.0 39.0 29.0 -0.07 0.02 synchronized data to set up a comparison between simulated
Straight GH 1.1 3.0 35.6 32.7 -0.07 -0.02 and real-life settings. Absolute and relative validity of
Straight IL 12.0 15.0 29.3 27.0 0.24 0.05 behaviors and psychological modifications in the different
Straight MN 1.7 2.0 32.7 28.4 -0.09 0.00 environments can be calculated for the driving simulator. In
Straight OP 1.4 4.0 34.6 31.4 -0.07 -0.02 particular, the i.Drive simulation generates a sufficiently good
Straight QA 7.0 8.0 21.4 34.5 -0.12 -0.03 virtual reconstruction of the driving environment to require the
Turn BC 11.1 14.0 32.0 20.3 0.00 0.02 driver to adopt behavioral modifications similar to the one
Turn DE 5.6 10.0 26.8 14.2 -0.05 0.10 adopted while driving i.Drive vehicle. The absolute overall
Turn FG 10.5 18.0 41.8 33.4 -0.13 0.06 time required to complete a lap in the real-life scenario was
Turn LM 4.6 6.0 26.1 24.5 -0.02 -0.02 almost 45% longer than the virtual scenario, but the time-
Turn NO 4.0 6.0 30.5 23.7 -0.02 0.03 distribution between the driving segments provided a
Turn PQ 8.0 11.0 31.6 34.3 -0.12 0.07 significantly similar delta to the one recorded in the virtual
simulator. In the same way the mean speed across the different
driving intersections seemed to outline a solid relative validity
of the driver's behavior in the two settings, with the exception
of the straight segment QA, that reported a potential issue on
the virtual placement of the landmark intervals, given that to a
shorter time-interval in virtual simulation oddly corresponded
a slow speed in the virtual system. These results confirm the
fitness of the methodological protocol to validate the virtual
environment adapted for this research, suggesting strength and
potential issue that should be corrected before the systematic
use of a virtual environment for a research campaign. In the
same direction, the reactivity scores of electrodermal activity
confirm previous research that indicated different absolute
values for skin conductance activity in virtual simulations [8].
The driver's autonomic nervous system reacts in terms of
absolute values in a different way when driving in a
simulation, but still similar pattern of reactivity scores across
the different intersections could provide relative validity in
future research. The implementation of additional autonomic
nervous system measures and subjective interview could
contextualize, for instance, the reason of eventual non-specific
fluctuations in skin conductance differences (e.g. straight
segment IL) in the virtual environment, and lager sample size
could provide enough power to allow parametrical statistics.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The present study presented the methodological and
conceptual description of a validation protocol that needs to be
tested with more than one participant, using also additional
measures, like Heart Rate Variability, that are not fully
automated with the present version of the set-up. Nevertheless,
the methods present the potential to start new testing session,
also in different driving environment, to test different
responses. In addition, the modular nature of the two labs
allows the introduction of different instrumentation, like eye
tracking systems, to monitor and validate visual attention in
different driving contexts. In conclusion, the data gathered
with the i.Drive lab show that they are able to resolve open
issues about transportation research, and they can be used to
assess behavioral and physiological responses to different
driving situations. A guide line for validating simulation (on
realty scenario) will be a task of a near future work. The future
validated link between the i.Drive Simulator and the vehicle
will allow the development of integrated research paradigms,
optimizing pros and cons of both experimental settings.
References
[1] D. Araujo, K. Davids, and P. Passos, Ecological validity, representative
design, and correspondence between experimental task constraints and
behavioral setting: Comment on Rogers, Kadar, and Costall (2005),
Ecological Psychology, 19(1), 69-78, 2007.
[2] N. Kaptein, J. Theeuwes, and R. Van Der Horst, Driving simulator
validity: Some considerations, Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board, (1550), 30-36, 1996.
[3] S.T. Godley, T.J. Triggs, and B.N. Fildes, Driving simulator validation
for speed research, Accid. Anal. Prev., 34(5), 589-600, 2002.
[4] H.C. Lee, D. Cameron, and A.H. Lee, Assessing the driving
performance of older adult drivers: on-road versus simulated driving,
Accid. Anal. Prev., 35(5), 797-803, 2003.
[5] J.A: Groeger, Understanding driving: Applying cognitive psychology to
a complex everyday task. Psychology Press, 2000.
[6] M.J. Johnson, T. Chahal, A. Stinchcombe, N. Mullen, B. Weaver, and
M. Bedard, Physiological responses to simulated and on-road driving,
International journal of Psychophysiology, 81(3), 203-208, 2011.
[7] J.K. Lenneman and R.W. Backs, Cardiac autonomic control during
simulated driving with a concurrent verbal working memory task,
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society, 51(3), 404418, 2009.
[8] D. Egan, S. Brennan, J. Barrett, Y. Qiao, C. Timmerer, and N. Murray,
An evaluation of heart rate and electrodermal activity as an objective
QoE evaluation method for immersive virtual reality environments, in
2016 Eighth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia
Experience (QoMEX). IEEE, June 2016.
[9] D. Ruscio, A:J. Bos, and M.R. Ciceri, Distraction or cognitive
overload? Using modulations of the autonomic nervous system to
discriminate the possible negative effects of advanced assistance
system, Accid. Anal. Prev., 103, 105111, 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.aap.2017.03.023.
[10] G.J. Blaauw, Driving experience and task demands in simulator and
instrumented car: a validation study, Human Factors, 24(4), 473-486,
1982.
[11] M.J. Johnson, T. Chahal, A. Stinchcombe, N. Mullen, B. Weaver, and
M. Bdard, Physiological responses to simulated and on-road driving,
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 81(3), 203208, 2011.
[12] www.fanatec.com [last accessed 10-02-2017]
[13] www.logitech.com [last accessed 10-02-2017]
[14] www.unity3d.com [last accessed 10-02-2017]
[15] www.thoughttechnology.com/ [last accessed 10-02-2017]
[16] E. Tenkink and , A.R.A. Van der Horst, Effects of road width and
curve characteristics on driving speed, Report YZF 1991 C-26. TNO
Institute for Perception, Soesterberg, 1991.
[17] F. Bella, Driving simulator for speed research on two-lane rural
roads,. Accid. Anal. Prev., 40(3), 1078-1087, 2008.
[18] C. Collet, A. Clarion, M. Morel, A. Chapon, and C. Petit, Physiological
and behavioural changes associated to the management of secondary
tasks while driving, Applied Ergonomics, 40(6), 10416, 2009.
[19] D. Ruscio, Simulating real danger? Validation of driving simulator test
and psychological factors in brake response time to danger, in ICMI12
- Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimodal
Interaction, 2012.
[20] S.G. Har, and L.E. Staveland, Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load
Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research, Advances in
psychology, 52, 139-183, 1988.