The present research compared and contrasted the workload associated with using in-vehicle information systems commonly available in five different automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) with that of CarPlay and Android Auto when used in the same vehicles.
Background:
A growing trend is to provide access to portable smartphone-based systems (e.g., CarPlay and Android Auto) that support an expansion of various in-vehicle infotainment system features and functions.
Method/Results:
The study involved on-road testing of 24 participants in each configuration of five vehicles crossed with the three different infotainment systems: the embedded portion of the native OEM systems, CarPlay, and Android Auto. Our analysis found that workload was significantly greater for the embedded portion of the native OEM systems than for CarPlay and Android Auto. The strengths and weaknesses of each CarPlay and Android Auto traded off in such a way that the overall demand associated with using the two systems did not differ.
Conclusion:
CarPlay and Android Auto provided more functionality and resulted in lower levels of workload than the embedded portion of the native OEM infotainment systems.
Application:
Potential applications of this research include refinements to CarPlay and Android Auto to address variations in workload as a function of task type, the modality of interaction, and OEM implementation of the system.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01
3.
CastroS.CooperJ.StrayerD. (2016). Validating two assessment strategies for visual and cognitive load in a simulated driving task. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60, 1899–1903.
4.
CastroS. C.StrayerD. L.MatzkeD.HeathcoteA. (in press). Cognitive workload measurement and modeling under divided attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
5.
CooperJ. M.CastroS. C.StrayerD. L. (2016). Extending the Detection Response Task to simultaneously measure cognitive and visual task demands. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60, 1962–1966.
6.
DavisonA. C.HinkleyD. V.YoungG. A. (2003). Recent developments in bootstrap methodology. Statistical Science, 18, 141–157.
7.
EngströmJ.JohanssonE.ÖstlundJ. (2005). Effects of visual and cognitive load in real and simulated motorway driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8, 97–120.
8.
EngströmJ.MarkkulaG. (2007, July). Effects of visual and cognitive distraction on lane change test performance. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design, The University of Iowa, Iowa City.
9.
GrahamJ. W.TaylorB. J.OlchowskiA. E.CumsilleP. E. (2006). Planned missing data designs in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 11, 323–343.
10.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139–183.
11.
HorreyW. J.LeschM. F.Mitsopoulos-RubensE.LeeJ. D. (2015). Calibration of skill and judgment in driving: Development of a conceptual framework and the implications for road safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 76, 25–33.
12.
HothornT.BretzF.WestfallP. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal, 50, 346–363.
13.
International Organization for Standardization. (2012). Road vehicles—Ergonomic aspects of transport information and control systems—Calibration tasks for methods which assess driver demand due to the use of in-vehicle systems (Rep. ISO TS 14198). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
14.
International Organization for Standardization. (2015). Road vehicles—Transport information and control systems—Detection Response Task (DRT) for assessing attentional effects of cognitive load in driving (Rep. ISO 17488). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
15.
JacobyL. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513–541.
16.
KiddD. G.DobresJ.ReaganI.MehlerB.ReimerB. (2017). Considering visual-manual tasks performed during highway driving in the context of two different sets of guidelines for embedded in-vehicle electronic systems. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 47, 23–33. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2017.04.002
17.
LittleT. D.RhemtullaM. (2013). Planned missing data designs for developmental researchers. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 199–204.
18.
MattesS.FöhlU.SchindhelmR. (2007). Empirical comparison of methods for off-line workload measurement (AIDE Deliverable 2.2.7, EU Project IST-1-507674-IP). Gothenburg, Sweden: Adaptive Integrated Driver-Vehicle Interface.
19.
MehlerB.KiddD.ReimerB.ReaganI.DobresJ.McCarttA. (2016). Multi-modal assessment of on-road demand of voice and manual phone calling and voice navigation entry across two embedded vehicle systems. Ergonomics, 59, 344–367. doi:10.1080/00140139.2015.1081412
20.
MehlerB.ReimerB.DusekJ. (2011). MIT AgeLab delayed digit recall task (n-back) (White paper). Cambridge, MA: MIT AgeLab.
21.
MeloT. F.VasconcellosK. L.LemonteA. J. (2009). Some restriction tests in a new class of regression models for proportions. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 53, 3972–3979.
PaladaH.StrayerD. L.NealA.BallardX.HeathcoteA. (2017, November). A comparison of multitasking performance with and without inclusion of the Detection Response Task (DRT). Paper presented at the Society for Psychonomics Science, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from https://www.R-project.org/
26.
ReganM. A.HallettC.GordonC. P. (2011). Driver distraction and driver inattention: Definition, relationship and taxonomy. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43, 1771–1781.
27.
ReganM. A.StrayerD. L. (2014). Towards an understanding of driver inattention: Taxonomy and theory. Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine, 58, 5–13.
28.
SanbonmatsuD. M.StrayerD. L.BiondiF.BehrendsA. A.MooreS. M. (2016). Cell-phone use diminishes self-awareness of impaired driving. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 617–623.
29.
SchneiderW.ShiffrinR. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.
30.
ShiffrinR. M.SchneiderW. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.
31.
Society of Automotive Engineers. (2015). Operational definitions of driving performance measures and statistics (No. J2944). Warrendale, PA: Author.
StrayerD. L.CooperJ. M.GoetheR. M.McCartyM. M.GettyD.BiondiF. (2017). Visual and cognitive demands of using in-vehicle information systems. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
34.
StrayerD. L.TurrillJ.CooperJ. M.ColemanJ.Medeiros-WardN.BiondiF. (2015). Assessing cognitive distraction in the automobile. Human Factors, 53, 1300–1324.
35.
StrayerD. L.WatsonJ. M.DrewsF. A. (2011). Cognitive distraction while multitasking in the automobile. In RossB. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 54, pp. 29–58). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
36.
WickensC. (2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors, 50, 449–455. doi:10.1518/001872008X288394
37.
ZhangY.AngellL.PalaS.ShimonomotoI. (2015). Bench-marking drivers’ visual and cognitive demands: A feasibility study. SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars–Mechanical Systems, 8, 584–593. doi:10.4271/2015-01
