Cognitive Workload ≠ Crash Risk: Rejoinder to Study by Strayer et al. (2015)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations


Strayer et al.'s article is a significant attempt to scale the cognitive workload of different potentially distracting tasks. It is tempting but not warranted to equate the workload with the relative risk of crash involvement. In this article, I list the reasons why the scaling should not be generalized to safety implications in real driving and argue for the combination of studies of maximal performance assessment (e.g., simulation) with behavioral assessment (e.g., naturalistic driving).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1328-1330
Number of pages3
JournalHuman Factors
Issue number8
StatePublished - 1 Dec 2015


  • accidents
  • cognition
  • distraction
  • dual task
  • human error
  • intelligent vehicle systems
  • mental workload
  • risk assessment
  • surface transportation
  • task switching
  • time sharing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Human Factors and Ergonomics
  • Applied Psychology
  • Behavioral Neuroscience


Dive into the research topics of 'Cognitive Workload ≠ Crash Risk: Rejoinder to Study by Strayer et al. (2015)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this