Is "Sleepy Supervision" the New "Drowsy Driving"?

Cassie J. Hilditch; Erin E. Flynn‑Evans; Lily R. Wong; Yukiyo Kuriyagawa; Nikhil Gowda; Patrick F. Cravalho; Sean Pradhan; Nathan H. Feick; Nicholas G. Bathurst; Zachary L. Glaros; Theerawit Wilaiprasitporn; Kanika Bansal; Javier O. Garcia

NASA NTRS · 20230005251

Is "Sleepy Supervision" the New "Drowsy Driving"?

Cassie J. Hilditch·Erin E. Flynn‑Evans·Lily R. Wong·Yukiyo Kuriyagawa·Nikhil Gowda·Patrick F. Cravalho·Sean Pradhan·Nathan H. Feick·Nicholas G. Bathurst·Zachary L. Glaros·Theerawit Wilaiprasitporn·Kanika Bansal·Javier O. Garcia

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Human error has been implicated as a causal factor in a large proportion of road accidents. Automated driving systems purport to mitigate this risk, but self-driving systems that allow a driver to entirely disengage from the driving task also require the driver to monitor the environment and take control when necessary. Given that sleep loss impairs monitoring performance and there is a high prevalence of sleep deficiency in modern society, we hypothesized that supervising a self-driving vehicle would unmask latent sleepiness compared to manually controlled driving among individuals following their typical sleep schedules. We found that participants felt sleepier, had more involuntary transitions to sleep, had slower reaction times and more attentional failures, and showed substantial modifications in brain synchronization during and following an autonomous drive compared to a manually controlled drive. Our findings suggest that the introduction of partial self-driving capabilities in vehicles has the potential to paradoxically increase accident risk.

Explore related subjects

sleepiness autonomous vehicles reaction time drowsy driving

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Cassie J. Hilditch, Erin E. Flynn‑Evans, Lily R. Wong, Yukiyo Kuriyagawa, Nikhil Gowda, Patrick F. Cravalho, Sean Pradhan, Nathan H. Feick, Nicholas G. Bathurst, Zachary L. Glaros, Theerawit Wilaiprasitporn, Kanika Bansal, Javier O. Garcia. Is "Sleepy Supervision" the New "Drowsy Driving"?. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230005251

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

NASA NTRS2020

Mitigating fatigue on the flight deck: how is controlled rest used in practice?

Controlled Rest (CR) refers to a short, voluntary nap opportunity taken by pilots on the flight deck as a countermeasure to unanticipated sleepiness in flight. This study explores the profile of CR use in a long-haul commercial airline. Forty-four pilots wore actiwatches and filled in an application-based sleep/work diary for approximately 2 weeks resulting in complete records from 239 flights. Timing of sleep periods and flight schedules were analyzed relative to home-base time. Pearson correlations were used to assess the influence of pilot demographics on CR use. A mixed-effects logistic regression was used to analyze the impact of schedule factors on CR. CR was taken on 46% (n=110) of flights, with 80% (n=106/133) of all CR attempts estimated by actigraphy to have successfully achieved sleep. Average sleep duration during successful rest periods was estimated as 31.7 ± 12.2 minutes. CR was more frequent on return (60%, n=71) vs. outbound flights (33%, n=39); 2-pilot (69%, n=83) vs. >2-pilot flights (23%, n=27); <10h (63%, n=80) vs. >10h duration flights (27%, n=30); and night (55%, n=76) vs. day flights (34%, n=34) (all p≤0.001). There was no significant difference for direction of travel (eastbound: 51%, n= 57; westbound: 40%, n= 44; p=0.059). Of note, 22% (n=26) of augmented flights contained both CR and bunk rest. Data from this airline show that CR is most commonly used as a countermeasure to sleepiness on flights <10h duration (2-pilot crews) and home-base nighttime flights. Future studies are required to determine the generalizability of these results to other airlines.

sleepiness↗

NASA NTRS2019

The Prevalence of Controlled Rest as a Countermeasure to Sleepiness on the Flight Deck

Despite the introduction of flight, duty, and rest time regulations to reduce the risk of sleepiness, airline pilots often encounter elevated sleepiness during flight. To combat this sleepiness, in some instances, pilots can take a short nap on the flight deck (controlled rest) to improve their alertness. Little is known, however, as to when and how often this countermeasure is used operationally.

sleepiness↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Sleep, Sleepiness, and Performance Across Three In-Flight Bunk Rest Opportunities

Introduction: Airline pilots are required to take a rest break in a bunk during long-haul flights in an effort to reduce sleepiness during critical phases of flight. It is unclear, however, whether each rest break affords equal opportunity for sleep. We aimed to characterize sleep, sleepiness, and performance outcomes across three in-flight rest breaks during long-haul flights. Methods: Thirty-seven pilots wore actiwatches and completed sleep diaries for approximately two weeks while flying a variety of long-haul routes (n=126 flights). Self-reported in-flight bunk rest (BR) periods were used to set rest intervals and sleep was estimated within these intervals using actigraphy software (wake threshold set to medium). Pilots provided Karolinska Sleepiness Scale ratings (KSS) and performed a 5-minute psychomotor vigilance task (PVT) before landing. A linear mixed-effects model with participant included as a random effect and allowed to vary by intercept was used to assess differences between BR opportunities. Results : The majority (97%, n=122) of bunk rest periods contained sleep (as estimated by actigraphy). The mean (+/- standard deviation) sleep duration for the first, middle, and third BR opportunity was 152.8 (69.7), 149.2 (44.1), 125.2 (44.9) minutes, respectively. There was a significant effect of BR opportunity for sleep duration (F2,54 = 3.747, p=.03) and KSS (F2,44 = 7.869, p=.001). Bonferroni adjusted planned pairwise contrasts revealed that pilots using the third BR obtained significantly less sleep than in the first BR (p=.029). KSS ratings prior to landing were higher for the third BR compared to both the first (p=.001) and middle BR (p=.017). There were no significant differences for PVT speed or lapses (all p>05). Conclusion: These results suggest that the last rest break is associated with shorter sleep, lower alertness, and no differences in performance relative to the other rest breaks. Further analysis is required to determine whether the higher KSS ratings following the third rest break are associated with sleep inertia, or whether other factors may be involved.

sleepiness↗