Tuomo Kujala
ABSTRACT
Three text entry methods were compared in a driving simulator study with 17 participants. Ninety-seven drivers' occlusion distance (OD) data mapped on the test routes was used as a baseline to evaluate the methods' visual distraction potential. Only the voice recognition-based text entry tasks passed the set verification criteria. Handwriting tasks were experienced as the most demanding and the voice recognition tasks as the least demanding. An individual in-car glance length preference was found, but against expectations, drivers' ODs did not correlate with in-car glance lengths or visual short-term memory capacity. The handwriting method was further studied with 24 participants with instructions and practice on writing eyes-on-road. The practice did not affect the test results. The findings suggest that handwriting could be visually less demanding than touch screen typing but the reliability of character recognition should be improved or the driver well-experienced with the method to minimize its distraction potential.
- Robert Broström, Peter Bengtsson and Mikael Ljung Aust. 2016. Individual glance strategies and their effect on the NHTSA visual manual distraction test. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 36, 83--91.Google Scholar
- Robert Broström, Mikael Ljung Aust, Linnea Wahlberg and Laban Källgren. 2013. What drives off-road glance durations during multitasking--capacity, practice or strategy. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention.Google Scholar
- Joseph M. Crandall and Alex Chaparro. 2012. Driver distraction: Effects of text entry methods on driving performance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56, 1: 1693--1697.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sergio Della Sala, Colin Gray, Alan Baddeley, Nadia Allamano and Lindsey Wilson. 1999. Pattern span: a tool for unwelding visuo--spatial memory. Neuropsychologia, 37, 10: 1189--1199.Google ScholarCross Ref
- James P. Foley, Richard Young, Linda Angell and Joshua E. Domeyer. 2013. Towards operationalizing driver distraction. In Proceedings of the 7th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design, 57--63.Google Scholar
- Ray Fuller. 2005. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. Accident Analysis & Prevention 37, 3: 461--472.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sandra G. Hart and Lowell E. Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in psychology, 52, 139--183.Google Scholar
- Christian P. Janssen, Duncan P. Brumby and Rae Garnett. 2012. Natural break points: The influence of priorities and cognitive and motor cues on dual-task interleaving. Journal of Cognitive Engineering & Decision Making, 6, 5--29.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jibo He, Alex Chaparro, Bobby Nguyen, Rondell J. Burge, Joseph Crandall, Barbara Chaparro, Rui Ni and Shi Cao. 2014. Texting while driving: Is speech-based text entry less risky than handheld text entry? Accident Analysis & Prevention, 72, 287--295.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jibo He, William Choi, Jason S. McCarley, Barbara S. Chaparro and Chun Wang. 2015. Texting while driving using Google Glass™: Promising but not distraction-free. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 81, 218--229.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Petri Jääskeläinen and Leena Pöysti. 2014. Tarkkaamattomuus tieliikenteen turvalli-suusongelmana -- suomalaisten käsityksiä (Driver distraction and inattention as a safety issue in road traffic -- Finnish views). Helsinki: Finnish Road Safety Council.Google Scholar
- Dagmar Kern, Albrecht Schmidt, Jonas Arnsmann, Thorsten Appelmann, Nillakshi Pararasasegaran and Benjamin Piepiera. 2009. Writing to your car: handwritten text input while driving. In CHI'09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 4705--4710. ACM. 10.1145/1520340.1520724 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Katja Kircher and Christer Ahlstrom. (in press). Minimum required attention: a human-centered approach to driver inattention. Human factors.Google Scholar
- Tuomo Kujala, Hilkka Grahn, Jakke Mäkelä and Annegret Lasch. 2016a. On the Visual Distraction Effects of Audio-Visual Route Guidance. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 169--176. ACM. 10.1145/3003715.3005421 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tuomo Kujala and Jakke Mäkelä. 2015. Development of a testing environment and a verification procedure for in-car tasks with dynamic driving scenarios. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention.Google Scholar
- Tuomo Kujala, Jakke Mäkelä, Ilkka Kotilainen and Timo Tokkonen, 2016b. The Attentional Demand of Automobile Driving Revisited: Occlusion Distance as a Function of Task-Relevant Event Density in Realistic Driving Scenarios. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 58, 1: 163--180.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tuomo Kujala, Johanna Silvennoinen and Annegret Lasch. 2013. Visual-manual in-car tasks decomposed: text entry and kinetic scrolling as the main sources of visual distraction. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 82--89. ACM. 10.1145/2516540.2516562 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mikael Ljung Aust, Sergejs Dombrovskis, Jordanka Kovaceva and Bo Svanberg. 2013. An empirically based suggestion for reformulating the glance duration criteria in NHTSA's visual-manual interaction guidelines. SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars-Electronic and Electrical Systems, 6(2013-01-0444), 444--453. 10.4271/2013-01-0444Google Scholar
- I. Scott MacKenzie and R. William Soukoreff. 2002. Text entry for mobile computing: Models and methods, theory and practice. Human--Computer Interaction, 17, 2--3: 147--198. 10.1080/07370024.2002.9667313Google ScholarCross Ref
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2013). Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices. (NHTSA-2010-0053.) Washington DC, NHTSA.Google Scholar
- Jami Pekkanen, Otto Lappi, Teemu H. Itkonen and Heikki Summala. 2017. Task-difficulty homeostasis in car following models: experimental validation using self-paced visual occlusion. PLoS one, 12, 1: e0169704.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bryan Reimer and Bruce Mehler. 2013. The effects of a production level "voice-command" interface on driver behavior: summary findings on reported workload, physiology, visual attention, and driving performance. MIT AgeLab Technical Report No. 2013-17A. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Bryan Reimer, Bruce Mehler, Ian Reagan, David Kidd and Jonathan Dobres. 2016. Multi-modal demands of a smartphone used to place calls and enter addresses during highway driving relative to two embedded systems. Ergonomics, 59, 12: 1565--1585.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aubrey Samost, David Perlman, August G. Domel, Bryan Reimer, Bruce Mehler, Alea Mehler, Jonathan Doblers and Thomas McWilliams. 2015. Comparing the Relative Impact of Smartwatch and Smartphone Use While Driving on Workload, Attention, and Driving Performance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59, 1: 1602--1606. Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John W. Senders, A. B. Kristofferson, W. H. Levison, C. W. Dietrich and J. L. Ward. 1967. The attentional demand of automobile driving. Highway research record, 195.Google Scholar
- Society of Automotive Engineers. 2000. SAE-J2396 Definitions and Experimental Measures Related to the Specification of Driver Visual Behavior Using Video Based Techniques. Warrendale, PA: SAE.Google Scholar
- Kathryn G. Tippey, Elayaraj Sivaraj, Wil-Johneen Ardoin, Trey Roady and Thomas K. Ferris. 2014. Texting while driving using Google Glass: Investigating the combined effect of heads-up display and hands-free input on driving safety and performance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 58, 1: 2023--2027. Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
- Omer Tsimhoni, Daniel Smith and Paul Green. 2004. Address entry while driving: Speech recognition versus a touch screen keyboard. Human Factors, 46, 4: 600--610.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gabriela Villalobos-Zúñiga, Tuomo Kujala and Antti Oulasvirta. 2016. T9+ HUD: Physical Keypad and HUD can Improve Driving Performance while Typing and Driving. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 177--184. ACM. 10.1145/3003715.3005453 Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Visual Distraction Effects of In-Car Text Entry Methods: Comparing Keyboard, Handwriting and Voice Recognition
Recommendations
Visual Distraction Effects between In-Vehicle Tasks with a Smartphone and a Motorcycle Helmet-Mounted Head-Up Display
Mindtrek '18: Proceedings of the 22nd International Academic Mindtrek ConferenceBesides motorists, also motorcyclists need safer user interfaces to interact with useful applications on the road. In this paper, distraction effects of in-vehicle tasks conducted with a head-up display (HUD) for motorcyclists were compared to ...
On the Visual Distraction Effects of Audio-Visual Route Guidance
Automotive'UI 16: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular ApplicationsThis is the first controlled quantitative analysis on the visual distraction effects of audio-visual route guidance in simulated, but ecologically realistic driving scenarios with dynamic maneuvers and self-controlled speed (N = 24). The audio-visual ...
Critical Analysis on the NHTSA Acceptance Criteria for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices
AutomotiveUI '14: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular ApplicationsWe tested a commercial in-car navigation system prototype against the NHTSA criteria for acceptance testing of in-vehicle electronic devices, in order to see what types of in-car tasks fail the acceptance test and why. In addition, we studied the visual ...
Comments