JP5499402B2 - Alcohol drinking driving evaluation method, apparatus and program - Google Patents

Description

The present invention, alcohol drinking driving evaluation method for refrain drunk driving, to an apparatus and a program.

  Drunk driving is the trigger of a serious accident, but it is difficult to eradicate it. The reason is that when a small amount of alcohol is consumed, communication is promoted and there is no awareness of danger. Here, “alcohol” refers to alcoholic beverages containing an alcohol component, and “drinking” refers to drinking. same as below.

  The problem of drinking a small amount of alcohol is that although it promotes motor function and conversation is fluent, it cannot be controlled or controlled. Here, the present inventor has conducted basic research on the “Stroop effect” for many years in the fields of ergonomics and cognitive psychology. It has been confirmed through experiments that this phenomenon is related to human attention functions, in particular, movement suppression control functions (see Non-Patent Document 1, for example). As far as the present inventor is aware of, the Stroop effect is an indication of the movement suppression function, but none of the effects of drinking a small amount of alcohol on drunk driving have been captured.

The present invention has such has been made in view of the circumstances, alcohol drinking driving evaluation method that may effectively be refrain drunk driving, and an object thereof is to provide an apparatus and a program.

The alcohol drinking driving evaluation method according to the present invention is a method for evaluating the influence of alcohol drinking on a human suppression function in order to make a drunk driving self-sufficient, and is a reaction time to a Stroop task of a subject who has drunk alcohol. The first step of detecting the indicated conflict for each trial with a time difference, the second step of calculating the Stroop effect from the conflict detected for each trial, and the Stroop effect between the calculated trials. And a third step in which the change is a control amount indicating the suppression function of the subject.

The alcohol drinking driving evaluation apparatus according to the present invention is an apparatus for evaluating the influence of alcohol drinking on a human restraint function in order to make the drunk driving self-sufficient, and the reaction time for the Stroop task of the subject who drinks alcohol Detection means for detecting the indicated conflict for each trial giving a time difference, arithmetic means for calculating the Stroop effect from the conflict detected for each trial, and the change in the Stroop effect between the calculated trials. And an evaluation means for providing a control amount indicating the suppression function of the subject.

The alcohol drinking driving evaluation program according to the present invention is a program for evaluating the influence of alcohol drinking on human suppression function in order to make the drunk driving self-sufficient, and the reaction time for the Stroop task of the subject who drinks alcohol The first function for detecting the indicated conflict for each trial with a time difference, the second function for calculating the Stroop effect from the conflict detected for each trial, and the Stroop effect between the calculated trials. The computer is realized with a third function in which the change is a control amount indicating the suppression function of the subject.

  According to the present invention, a conflict indicated by the reaction time for the Stroop task of a subject who has drunk alcohol is detected for each trial giving a time difference, and the Stroop effect is calculated from the conflict detected for each trial, The change in the Stroop effect between the calculated trials is taken as a control amount that indicates the subject's suppression function, so even a small amount of alcohol drinking that the person does not notice at all has a decrease in the suppression function. I understand. Thereby, it becomes possible to make a drunk driving effective self-sufficiently by making a driver easily know the stiffness of drinking.

As in the second aspect of the invention, the third step is based on the difference between the Stroop effect of Trial n when n-1 trials match and the Stroop effect of Trial n when n-1 trials do not match. Thus, it is preferable to obtain the control amount. However, n is a natural number of 2 or more.

According to the invention of claim 2, the third step is based on the difference between the Stroop effect of Trial n when n-1 trials match and the Stroop effect of Trial n when n-1 trials do not match. Since the control amount is obtained, only data processing in the previous and subsequent trials is required. Therefore, by letting the driver know the stiffness of drinking quickly, the drunk driving can be suppressed more effectively.

As in the invention described in claim 3 , for a subject who has drunk a plurality of levels of alcohol, the relationship between the amount of alcohol and the control amount can be determined by sequentially repeating the first to third steps for each stage. preferable.

According to the invention described in claim 3 , since the relationship between the amount of alcohol and the control amount was determined by repeating the first step to the third step for each step for the subject who was allowed to drink a plurality of levels of alcohol. The causal relationship between drinking a small amount of alcohol and reducing the inhibitory function is clarified.

    As in the invention described in claim 4, it is preferable that the amount of alcohol is smaller than the amount of alcohol consumed during drunk driving.

    According to the invention described in claim 4, since the amount of alcohol is smaller than the amount of alcohol used during drunk driving, it is possible to make the drunk driving more effective by making the driver easily aware of the stiffness of a small amount of drinking. Will be able to.

  As in the invention described in claim 5, the alcohol amount is preferably the alcohol concentration contained in the breath of the subject.

According to the invention described in claim 5 , since the alcohol amount is the alcohol concentration contained in the breath of the subject, individual differences can be reflected.

  According to the present invention, a conflict indicated by a reaction time for a sloop task of a subject who has drunk alcohol is detected for each trial giving a time difference, and from the detected conflict for each trial, a Stroop effect is calculated, The change in the Stroop effect between the calculated trials is taken as a control amount that indicates the subject's suppression function, so even a small amount of alcohol drinking that the person does not notice at all has a decrease in the suppression function. I understand. Thereby, it becomes possible to make a drunk driving effective self-sufficiently by making a driver easily know the stiffness of drinking.

It is a block diagram which shows the whole structure of the alcohol drinking driving | operation evaluation apparatus which concerns on one Embodiment of this invention. It is a flowchart which shows the procedure of alcohol drinking driving | operation evaluation . It is explanatory drawing which shows the relationship between n-1 trial and n trial in drinking amount 0mg / l. It is explanatory drawing which shows the relationship between n-1 trial and n trial in drinking amount 0.02mg / l. It is explanatory drawing which shows the relationship between n-1 trial and n trial in drinking amount 0.03mg / l. It is explanatory drawing which shows the relationship between n-1 trial and n trial in drinking amount 0.04mg / l. It is explanatory drawing which shows the change of control amount.

  Conventionally, a method of capturing conflict detection and its control function by the Stroop effect is known, but it is as described above that there is no application example to drunk driving.

  Here, the Stroop effect is an interference effect that occurs when naming a color word. In the present invention, this effect is not captured only by the average value of the whole, but by the temporal relationship between trials. Specifically, it can be obtained by subtracting the naming time at the time of matching from the color naming time at the time of mismatching (for example, blue written in red).

  At that time, when the case where the color word does not match in n-1 trials is detected, if “blue” is detected in red, the control works for the next color word (n trials). The effect of decreasing was observed.

FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing an overall configuration of an apparatus (hereinafter referred to as “this apparatus”) 1 to which an alcohol drinking driving evaluation method according to an embodiment of the present invention can be applied. As shown in FIG. 1, the apparatus 1 includes a display 2 that presents a conflict problem and a computer 3. Commercially available hardware can be used for both the display 2 and the computer 3 itself.

  For example, the computer 3 is a personal computer including a CPU (Central processing unit) 31 that executes various calculations, a hard disk 32 that stores various programs, and a memory 33 that temporarily stores various data. Yes, the microphone 4 and the touch key 5 are electrically connected to this.

Then, by reading various programs including the alcohol drinking driving evaluation program stored in the hard disk 32 into the CPU 31 and executing them, a conflict detection unit (corresponding to detection means) 31a and a Stroop effect calculation unit (Corresponding to computing means) 31b and control evaluation unit (corresponding to evaluating means) 31c are constructed respectively. In other words, the conflict detection unit 31a has the first function of the alcohol drinking driving evaluation program, the Stroop effect calculation unit 31b has the second function of the alcohol drinking driving evaluation program, and the control evaluation unit 31c has the third function of the alcohol drinking driving evaluation program. Are respectively realized by the computer 3.

  The conflict detection unit 31a determines the time until the subject who has seen the conflict problem displayed on the display 2 responds with the microphone 4 or the touch key 5, and matches the alcohol concentration contained in the subject's breath and n-1, n trials. Alternatively, it is read in association with information indicating that they do not match. In addition, the time associated with the alcohol concentration and the information that n-1 and n trials match or do not match is displayed on the display 2 (see FIGS. 3 to 6).

  The Stroop effect calculation unit 31b calculates the Stroop effect of Trial n when n-1 trials match, and calculates the Stroop effect of Trial n when n-1 trials do not match. However, n is a natural number of 2 or more.

  The control evaluation unit 31c uses the difference in the Stroop effect between trials obtained by the Stroop effect calculation unit 31b as the control amount. That is, the control amount is obtained by subtracting the stroop effect of trial n when n-1 trials do not match from the Stroop effect of trial n when the n-1 trials obtained by the Stroop effect calculation unit 31b are coincident. Is. Moreover, the presence or absence of the data from which the alcohol concentration in a test subject's breath differs is judged. If it is determined that there is data with different alcohol concentrations, the process returns to reading of data by the conflict detection unit 31a. If it is determined that there is no data with different alcohol concentrations, the relationship between the alcohol concentration and the control amount is displayed on the display 2. (See FIG. 7).

  The alcohol concentration in the exhaled breath of 4 subjects was as follows. That is, for test subject 3, the alcohol concentration in exhalation when the alcohol consumption is 0 cc is 0 mg / l (milligram / liter: the same applies hereinafter), and the alcohol concentration in the exhalation when the alcohol consumption is 125 cc is 0. 0.03 mg / l, and the alcohol concentration in the breath when the amount of alcohol consumed was 250 cc was 0.06 mg / l.

  For test subject 5, the alcohol concentration in exhalation when the alcohol consumption was 0 cc was 0 mg / l, the alcohol concentration in the exhalation when the alcohol consumption was 125 cc was 0 mg / l, and when the alcohol consumption was 250 cc The alcohol concentration in exhaled breath was 0.04 mg / l.

  For subject 6, the alcohol concentration in exhalation when the alcohol consumption is 0 cc is 0 mg / l, the alcohol concentration in the exhalation when the alcohol consumption is 125 cc is 0 mg / l, and when the alcohol consumption is 250 cc The alcohol concentration in exhaled breath was 0.02 mg / l.

  For test subject 7, the alcohol concentration in exhalation when the alcohol consumption was 0 cc was 0 mg / l, the alcohol concentration in the exhalation when the alcohol consumption was 125 cc was 0.02 mg / l, and the alcohol consumption was 250 cc. The alcohol concentration in exhaled breath was 0.06 mg / l.

  Thus, individual differences were seen in the relationship between the amount of alcohol consumed and the alcohol concentration in exhaled breath. Accordingly, in the following, conflict detection is performed using not the amount of alcohol consumption but the alcohol concentration in the expiration as a parameter.

  Hereinafter, the operation of the apparatus 1 will be described. FIG. 2 is a flowchart showing the operation of the present apparatus 1, and FIGS. 3 to 6 are explanatory diagrams showing calculation results of each Stroop effect.

  In FIG. 2, first, the conflict detection unit 31a reads data when the alcohol concentration in expiration is 0 mg / l (step S1). Specifically, the time until the subject who sees the conflict problem displayed on the display 2 responds with the microphone 4 or the touch key 5 is determined by the alcohol concentration contained in the subject's breath or the match of n-1, n trials. Read in association with information indicating that they do not match.

  The time associated with the alcohol concentration and the information that the n-1 and n trials match or do not match, which is the result of organizing the read data, is displayed on the display 2 (step S2). For example, as shown in FIG. 3, when the n-1 trials match and the n trials match, the displayed content is 571 ms (millisecond, the same applies hereinafter), and the n-1 trials match, When the trials do not match, it is 665 ms. When n-1 trials do not match and n trials match, it is 589 ms, and when n-1 trials do not match and n trials do not match, it is 660 ms.

  Next, when the Stroop effect calculation unit 31b obtains the Stroop effect of trial n when n-1 trials coincide (Step S3), the Stroop effect = 665 ms−571 ms = 94 ms.

  Further, when the Stroop effect of trial n when n-1 trials are inconsistent (step S4), the Stroop effect = 660 ms−589 ms = 71 ms.

  Next, the control evaluation unit 31c subtracts the Stroop effect of trial n when n-1 trials do not match from the Stroop effect of trial n when the n-1 trials obtained by the Stroop effect calculation unit 31b match. Then (step S5), the control amount = 94 ms−71 ms = 23 ms.

  Subsequently, in step S6, it is determined whether there is data with different alcohol concentrations in the breath of the subject. If it is determined that there is data with different alcohol concentrations, the process returns to step S1, and if it is determined that there is no data with different alcohol concentrations, the process proceeds to step S7. Here, since it is determined that there is data with different alcohol concentrations, the process returns to step S1, and the conflict detection unit 31a reads data when the alcohol concentration in expiration is 0.02 mg / l.

  The time associated with the alcohol concentration and the information that the n-1 and n trials match or do not match, which is the result of organizing the read data, is displayed on the display 2 (step S2). For example, as shown in FIG. 4, the display contents are 575 ms when n-1 trials match and n trials match, and 709 ms when n-1 trials match and n trials do not match. When n-1 trials did not match and n trials matched, it was 580 ms, and when n-1 trials did not match and n trials did not match, it was 696 ms.

  Next, when the Stroop effect calculation unit 31b obtains the Stroop effect of trial n when n-1 trials coincide (Step S3), the Stroop effect = 709 ms−575 ms = 134 ms.

  Further, when the Stroop effect of trial n when n-1 trials are inconsistent (step S4), the Stroop effect = 696 ms−580 ms = 116 ms.

  Next, the control evaluation unit 31c subtracts the Stroop effect of trial n when n-1 trials do not match from the Stroop effect of trial n when the n-1 trials obtained by the Stroop effect calculation unit 31b match. Then (step S5), the control amount = 134 ms−116 ms = 18 ms.

  Subsequently, in step S6, it is determined whether or not there is data with different alcohol concentrations in the breath of the subject. If it is determined that there is data with different alcohol concentrations, the process returns to step S1, and if it is determined that there is no data with different alcohol concentrations, the process proceeds to step S7. Here, since it is determined that there is data with different alcohol concentrations, the process returns to step S1, and the conflict detection unit 31a reads the data when the alcohol concentration in expiration is 0.03 mg / l.

  The time associated with the alcohol concentration and the information that the n-1 and n trials match or do not match, which is the result of organizing the read data, is displayed on the display 2 (step S2). For example, as shown in FIG. 5, the display content is 552 ms when n-1 trials match and n trials match, and 698 ms when n-1 trials match and n trials do not match. When n-1 trials did not match and n trials matched, it was 565 ms, and when n-1 trials did not match and n trials did not match, it was 696 ms.

  Next, when the Stroop effect calculation unit 31b obtains the Stroop effect of trial n when n-1 trials coincide (step S3), the Stroop effect = 698 ms−552 ms = 146 ms.

  Further, when the Stroop effect of trial n when n-1 trials do not match (step S4), the Stroop effect = 696 ms-566 ms = 130 ms.

  Next, the control evaluation unit 31c subtracts the Stroop effect of trial n when n-1 trials do not match from the Stroop effect of trial n when the n-1 trials obtained by the Stroop effect calculation unit 31b match. Then (step S5), the control amount = 146 ms−130 ms = 16 ms.

  Subsequently, in step S6, it is determined whether there is data with different alcohol concentrations in the breath of the subject. If it is determined that there is data with different alcohol concentrations, the process returns to step S1, and if it is determined that there is no data with different alcohol concentrations, the process proceeds to step S7. Here, since it is determined that there are data with different alcohol concentrations, the process returns to step S1, and the conflict detection unit 31a reads the data when the alcohol concentration in expiration is 0.04 mg / l.

  The time associated with the alcohol concentration and the information that the n-1 and n trials match or do not match, which is the result of organizing the read data, is displayed on the display 2 (step S2). For example, as shown in FIG. 6, the display content is 509 ms when n-1 trials match and n trials match, and 543 ms when n-1 trials match and n trials do not match. When n-1 trials did not match and n trials matched, it was 484 ms. When n-1 trials did not match and n trials did not match, it was 529 ms.

  Next, when the Stroop effect calculation unit 31b obtains the Stroop effect of trial n when n-1 trials coincide (Step S3), the Stroop effect = 543 ms−509 ms = 34 ms.

  Further, when the Stroop effect of trial n when n-1 trials are inconsistent (step S4), the Stroop effect = 529 ms-484 ms = 45 ms.

  Next, the control evaluation unit 31c subtracts the Stroop effect of trial n when n-1 trials do not match from the Stroop effect of trial n when the n-1 trials obtained by the Stroop effect calculation unit 31b match. Then (step S5), the control amount = 34 ms−45 ms = −11 ms.

  Subsequently, in step S6, it is determined whether there is data with different alcohol concentrations in the breath of the subject. If it is determined that there is data with different alcohol concentrations, the process returns to step S1, and if it is determined that there is no data with different alcohol concentrations, the process proceeds to step S7. Here, since it is determined that there is no data having different alcohol concentrations, the process proceeds to step S7.

  Then, the control evaluation unit 31c collectively displays the above calculation results on the display 2 (step S7). In this display content, the horizontal axis represents the alcohol concentration in the breath of the subject, and the vertical axis represents the control amount, for example, as shown in FIG. From the figure, it can be seen that as the alcohol concentration in the breath of the subject increases, the control amount gradually decreases.

  According to the present embodiment, the conflict detection unit 31a of the computer 3 detects the conflict indicated by the reaction time for the sloop task of the subject who has drunk alcohol for each trial giving a time difference (first step), and the Stroop calculation The Stroop effect is calculated from the conflict detected for each trial by the unit 31b (second step), and the change in the Stroop effect between the calculated trials is controlled by the control evaluation unit 31c. Is the control amount (third step). Therefore, it can be seen that even a small amount of alcohol drinking that the person does not notice at all has a reduced suppression function. Thereby, it becomes possible to make a drunk driving effective self-sufficiently by making a driver easily know the stiffness of drinking.

  Here, in the third step, the control amount is obtained based on the difference between the Stroop effect of Trial n when n-1 trials match and the Stroop effect of Trial n when n-1 trials do not match. , Only data processing in the previous and subsequent trials will be sufficient. Therefore, by letting the driver know the stiffness of drinking quickly, the drunk driving can be suppressed more effectively.

  In the above-described embodiment, the amount of alcohol in the breath is measured, and although there are individual differences, a much smaller amount of alcohol is detected compared to detection during drunk driving. That is, at 125 cc, 0 to 0.03 mg / l, and at 250 cc, 0.02 to 0.07 mg / l, whereas the standard for drunk driving is 0.16 mg / l. However, the control amount is clearly reduced, and the subject's awareness is not seen.

  Further, in the above embodiment, for a subject who has drunk a plurality of known alcohol amounts, the relationship between the alcohol amount and the control amount was obtained by sequentially repeating the third step from the first step for each step. It is preferable to use the method at an initial stage, for example, in a game sense.

  In the practical application stage, the relationship between the alcohol amount and the control amount is obtained in advance, and the control amount obtained by sequentially repeating the third step from the first step is obtained for the subject who drank an unknown amount of alcohol. Preferably, the unknown amount is obtained by applying the relationship between the alcohol amount and the control amount obtained in advance.

In the above embodiment, the alcohol drinking driving evaluation program is stored in the hard disk 32. However, the alcohol drinking driving evaluation program is recorded on a recording medium such as a CD or a DVD, and the recording medium is stored in the recording medium. The alcohol drinking driving evaluation program may be installed in the computer 3 by reading with a CD / DVD drive (not shown). Alternatively, the alcohol drinking driving evaluation program may be directly taken into the computer 3 through the Internet or the like. As a result, initial settings and version upgrades can be easily performed.

1 Alcohol Drinking Driving Evaluation Device 2 Display 3 Computer 31 CPU
31a Conflict detection unit (corresponding to detection means)
31b Stroop effect calculation unit (corresponds to calculation means)
31c Control evaluation part (equivalent to evaluation means)
32 Hard disk 33 Memory 4 Microphone 5 Touch key

Cue based switching between color-naming and word-reading responses to Stroop stimulus. , Hiroyuki SHIMADA, Precedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the International Society for Psychophysics, Vol. 23.

Claims (7)

A method for evaluating the influence of alcohol drinking on human restraint function in order to refrain from drunk driving,
A first step of detecting, for each trial giving a time difference, a conflict indicated by a reaction time for a Stroop task of a subject who has drunk alcohol;
From the conflict detected for each trial, a second step for calculating the Stroop effect respectively,
An alcohol drinking driving evaluation method, comprising: a third step in which the calculated change in the Stroop effect between trials is used as a control amount indicating the suppression function of the subject. The third step is characterized in that a control amount is obtained based on a difference between a Stroop effect of trial n when n-1 trials are matched and a Stroop effect of trial n when n-1 trials are not matched. The alcohol drinking driving evaluation method according to claim 1. However, n is a natural number of 2 or more.   3. The subject of drinking a plurality of levels of alcohol, wherein the relationship between the amount of alcohol and the control amount is determined by sequentially repeating the first to third steps for each step. Alcohol drinking driving evaluation method. The alcohol drinking driving evaluation method according to claim 3 , wherein the alcohol amount is smaller than the drinking amount during drunk driving. The alcohol drinking driving evaluation method according to claim 3 or 4 , wherein the alcohol amount is an alcohol concentration contained in the breath of the subject. A device that evaluates the effects of alcohol drinking on human restraint functions to make drunk driving self-sufficient,
A detecting means for detecting, for each trial giving a time difference, a conflict indicated by a response time to a Stroop task of a subject who has drunk alcohol;
Calculation means for calculating the Stroop effect from the conflict detected for each trial,
An alcohol drinking driving evaluation apparatus, comprising: an evaluation unit that uses the calculated change in the Stroop effect between trials as a control amount indicating a suppression function of the subject. A program that evaluates the effects of drinking alcohol on human suppression in order to refrain from drunk driving.
A first function that detects the conflict indicated by the response time to the Stroop task of the subject who has drunk alcohol for each trial that gave a time difference;
A second function for calculating the Stroop effect from the conflict detected for each trial,
An alcohol drinking driving evaluation program characterized by causing a computer to realize a third function that uses the calculated change in the Stroop effect between trials as a control amount indicating the suppression function of the subject.

Images