We assess the driving distraction potential of texting with Google Glass (Glass), a mobile wearable platform capable of receiving and sending short-message-service and other messaging formats.
Background:
A known roadway danger, texting while driving has been targeted by legislation and widely banned. Supporters of Glass claim the head-mounted wearable computer is designed to deliver information without concurrent distraction. Existing literature supports the supposition that design decisions incorporated in Glass might facilitate messaging for drivers.
Method:
We asked drivers in a simulator to drive and use either Glass or a smartphone-based messaging interface, then interrupted them with an emergency brake event. Both the response event and subsequent recovery were analyzed.
Results:
Glass-delivered messages served to moderate but did not eliminate distracting cognitive demands. A potential passive cost to drivers merely wearing Glass was also observed. Messaging using either device impaired driving as compared to driving without multitasking.
Conclusion:
Glass in not a panacea as some supporters claim, but it does point the way to design interventions that effect reduced load in multitasking.
Application:
Discussions of these identified benefits are framed within the potential of new in-vehicle systems that bring both novel forms of distraction and tools for mitigation into the driver’s seat.
AndersonJ. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
BrookhuisK. A.de WaardD. (1993). The use of psychophysiology to assess driver status. Ergonomics, 36, 1099–1110.
3.
CairdJ. K.JohnstonK. A.WillnessC. R.AsbridgeM.SteelP. (2014). A meta-analysis of the effects of texting on driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 71, 311–318.
4.
CousineauD. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45.
5.
CrislerM. C.BrooksJ. O.OgleJ. H.GuirlC. D.AlluriP.DixonK. K. (2008). Effect of wireless communication and entertainment devices on simulated driving performance. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2069, 48–54.
6.
DehaeneS.SpelkeE.PinelP.StanescuR.TsivkinS. (1999). Sources of mathematical thinking: Behavioral and brain-imaging evidence. Science, 284, 970–974.
7.
Department of Defense. (1999). Human engineering design criteria standard, MIL-STD-1472F. Washington, DC: Author.
8.
DrewsF. A.YazdaniH.GodfreyC. N.CooperJ. M.StrayerD. L. (2009). Text messaging during simulated driving. Human Factors, 51, 762–770.
9.
Elementary optics and application to fire control instruments. (1977). Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army.
10.
FaddenS.WickensC. D.VerversP. (2000). Costs and benefits of head up displays: An attention perspective and a metaanalysis (SAE Technical Paper No. 2000-01-5542). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
11.
FischerE.HainesR. F. (1980). Cognitive issues in head-up displays (NASA Technical Paper 711). Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
12.
FitchG. A.SoccolichS. A.GuoF.McClaffertyJ.FangY.OlsonR. L.PerezM. A.HanowskiR. J.HankeyJ. M.DingusT. A. (2013). The impact of hand-held and hands-free cell smartphone use on driving performance and safety-critical event risk (Report No. DOT HS 811 757). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
13.
FittsP. M.PosnerM. I. (1967). Human performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
14.
FlannaganM. J.HarrisonA. K. (1994). Effects of automobile head-up display location for younger and older drivers (No. UMTRI-94-22). Ann Arbor, MI: Transportation Research Institute.
15.
Frequently asked questions for eyecare professionals interested in Glass. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.google.com/glass/ecp/
16.
GabbardJ. L.FitchG. M.KimH. (2014). Behind the Glass: Driver challenges and opportunities for AR automotive applications. Proceedings of the IEEE, 102, 124–136.
17.
GreenhouseS. W.GeisserS. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112.
18.
HancockP. A.CairdJ. K. (1993). Experimental evaluation of a model of mental workload. Human Factors, 35, 413–429.
19.
HancockP. A.deRidderS. N. (2003). Behavioural accident avoidance science: Understanding response in collision incipient conditions. Ergonomics, 46, 1111–1135.
20.
HancockP. A.WarmJ. S. (1989). A dynamic model of stress and sustained attention. Human Factors, 31, 519–537.
21.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP. A.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–184). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland.
22.
HeJ.ChaparroA.NguyenB.BurgeR. J.CrandallJ.ChaparroB.NiR.CaoS. (2014). Texting while driving: Is speech-based text entry less risky than handheld text entry?Accident Analysis & Prevention, 72, 287–295.
23.
HorreyW. J.WickensC. D. (2003). Multiple resource modeling of task interference in vehicle control, hazard awareness and in-vehicle task performance. In Proceedings of the Second International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design (pp. 7–12). Iowa City: University of Iowa.
24.
HorreyW. J.WickensC. D.AlexanderA. L. (2003). The effects of head-up display clutter and in-vehicle display separation on concurrent driving performance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting (pp. 1880–1884). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. doi:10.1177/154193120304701610
25.
HoskingS. G.YoungK. L.ReganM. A. (2009). The effects of text messaging on young drivers. Human Factors, 51, 582–592.
26.
KieferR. J. (1995). Defining the HUD benefit time window. In GaleA. G. (Ed.), Vision in vehicles VI (pp. 133–142). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland/Elsevier.
27.
KieferR. J.GellatlyA. W. (1996). Quantifying the consequences of the “eyes-on-road” benefit attributed to head-up displays (SAE Paper No. 960946). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
28.
KressB.StarnerT. (2013). A review of head-mounted displays (HMD) technologies and applications for consumer electronics. In SPIE Defense, Security, and Sensing (pp. 87200A– 87200A). Bellingham, WA: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
29.
LeeJ. D. (2009). Engineering. Can technology get your eyes back on the road?Science, 324, 344–346.
30.
LeschM. F.HancockP. A. (2004). Driving performance during concurrent cell-phone use: Are drivers aware of their performance decrements?Accident Analysis & Prevention, 36, 471–480.
31.
LevyJ.PashlerH.BoerE. (2006). Central interference in driving is there any stopping the psychological refractory period?Psychological Science, 17, 228–235.
32.
MacArthurK. R.GreensteinS.SawyerB.HancockP. A. (2014, August). PSUM: Training in Google Glass and Android. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
33.
MorganJ. F.HancockP. A. (2011). The effect of prior task loading on mental workload an example of hysteresis in driving. Human Factors, 53, 75–86.
SawyerB. D.HancockP. A. (2012). Development of a linked simulation network to evaluate intelligent transportation system vehicle to vehicle solutions. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 56th Annual Meeting (pp. 2316–2320). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
36.
SawyerB. D.HancockP. A. (2013). Performance degradation due to automation in texting while driving. In Proceedings of 7th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design (No. 68). Iowa City: University of Iowa.
37.
ScheepersC.SturtP. (2014). Bidirectional syntactic priming across cognitive domains: From arithmetic to language and back. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1643–1654.
38.
ScheepersC.SturtP.MartinC. J.MyachykovA.TeevanK.ViskupovaI. (2011). Structural priming across cognitive domains from simple arithmetic to relative-clause attachment. Psychological Science, 22, 1319–1326.
39.
ShinarD.TractinskyN.ComptonR. (2005). Effects of practice, age, and task demands, on interference from a phone task while driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 37, 315–326.
40.
SiegenthalerE.CostelaF. M.McCamyM. B.Di StasiL. L.Otero-MillanJ.SondereggerA.GronerR.MacknikS.Martinez-CondeS. (2014). Task difficulty in mental arithmetic affects microsaccadic rates and magnitudes. European Journal of Neuroscience, 39, 287–294. doi:10.1111/ejn.12395
41.
StrayerD. L.DrewsF. A.JohnstonW. A. (2003). Cell smartphone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 23–32.
42.
TörnrosJ.BollingA. (2006). Mobile phone use: Effects of conversation on mental workload and driving speed in rural and urban environments. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 9, 298–306.
43.
WeihrauchM.MelonyG.GoeschT. (1989). The first head-up display introduced by General Motors (SAE Technical Paper No. 890228). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
44.
WickensC. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 159–177.
45.
WickensC. D.LongJ. (1994). Conformal symbology, attention shifts, and the head-up display. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting (pp. 6–10). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
