As the characteristics of in-vehicle human-machine interfaces (HMIs), the driving task, and the expectations and behavior of drivers have evolved, so too should our thinking and approach to HMI design and evaluation. This panel will present background and perspectives on the current status, emerging needs, challenges, and opportunities in this area. A key focus for the panel is an emphasis on attention support. Detailed contextual description is provided below for reference to allow panelists to keep their opening remarks relatively brief to allow for substantive question and discussion time with the audience.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhlstromC.GeorgoulasG.KircherK. (2021). Towards a context-dependent multi-buffer driver distraction detection algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/tits.2021.3060168
2.
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (2006). Statement of principles, criteria and verification procedures on driver interactions with advanced in-vehicle information and communication systems. Driver Focus-Telematics Working Group, Washington, DC.
3.
AngellL. S.PerezM. A.GarrottW. (2013, November). Explanatory Material About the Definition of a Task Used in NHTSA’s Driver Distraction Guidelines, and Task Examples. (Report No. DOT HS 811 858). Washington, DC; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
4.
BálintA.FlannaganC. A. C.LeslieA.KlauerS.GuoF.DozzaM. (2020, February). Multitasking additional-to-driving: Prevalence, structure, and associated risk in SHRP2 naturalistic driving data. Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 137, 105455.
5.
DingusT. A.GuoF.LeeS.AntinJ. F.PerezM.Buchanan-KingM.HankeyJ. (2016). Driver crash risk factors and prevalence evaluation using naturalistic driving data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(10), 2636–2641.
6.
DingusT. A.OwensJ. M.GuoF.FangY.PerezM.McClaffertyJ.Buchanan-KingM.FitchG. M. (2019). The prevalence of and crash risk associated with primarily cognitive secondary tasks. Safety Science, 119, 98–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.01.005
7.
Driver Focus-Telematics Working Group (DFTWG): ‘Statement of principles, criteria and verification procedures on driver interactions with advanced in-vehicle information and communication systems’, Washington, DC: Alliance of Automobile Manufactures, 2006.
8.
EndsleyM. R. (1995). Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64.
9.
KircherK.AhlstromC. (2012). The impact of tunnel design and lighting on the performance of attentive and visually distracted drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 47, 153–161.
10.
KlauerS. G.DingusT. A.NealeV. L.SudweeksJ. D.RamseyD. J.: (2006). The impact of driver inattention on near-crash/crash risk: An analysis using the 100-car naturalistic driving study data., US DOT Report HS810594.
11.
LeipnitzJ.GrossA.DostertJ.BaumgartenT. (2022). Evaluation of a dynamic blocking concept to mitigate driver distraction: three simulator studies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 84, 262-276.
12.
MehlerB.AngellL. S.SeppeltB.SeamanS.ReimerB. (2018). The TEORT Problem : Finding a Path to a Solution for Modern In-Vehicle HMIs (extended abstract). Proceedings of the 6th International Driver Distraction and Inattention Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden.
13.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2013). Visual-Manual Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices. Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 81, Apr. 26, 2013, pp. 24818–24890.
14.
SeamanS.SeppeltB.AngellL.ReimerB.MehlerB. (2021, October). Vehicle control and response to emerging events: it’s both off-road and on-road glance duration. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention, pp. 32-36, October18-20, 2021, (Virtual).
15.
SeamanS.LeeJ.SeppeltB.AngellL.MehlerB.ReimerB. (2017). It’s all in the timing: Using the attend algorithm to assess texting in the nest naturalistic driving database. Proceedings of the 9th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design: Driving Assessment 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.17077/drivingassessment.1665
16.
SeppeltB. D.SeamanS.AngellL.MehlerB.ReimerB. (2018). Assessing the effect of in-vehicle task interactions on attention management in safety-critical events. Proceedings of the 6th International Driver Distraction and Inattention, Gothenburg, Sweden.
17.
SeppeltB. D.SeamanS.LeeJ.AngellL. S.MehlerB.ReimerB. (2017). Glass half-full: On-road glance metrics differentiate crashes from near-crashes in the 100-Car data. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 107, 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.07.021
18.
StrayerD. L.CooperJ. M.McCartyM. M.GettyD. J.WheatleyC. L.MotzkusC. J.GoetheR. M.BiondiF.HorreyW. J. (2019). Visual and cognitive demands of carplay, android auto, and five native infotainment systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 61(8), 1371–1386.
19.
WolfeB.FridmanL.KosovichevaA.SeppeltB.MehlerB.ReimerB.RosenholtzR. (2019). Predicting road scenes from brief views of driving video. Journal of Vision, 19(5), 8. https://doi.org/10.1167/19.5.8
20.
WolfeB.FridmanL.KosovichevaA.SeppeltB.MehlerB.RosenholtzR.ReimerB. (2017). Perceiving the roadway in the blink of an eye-rapid perception of the road environment and prediction of events. Proceedings of the 9th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design: Driving Assessment 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.17077/drivingassessment.1637
21.
WolfeB.SeppeltB.MehlerB.ReimerB.RosenholtzR. (2020). Rapid holistic perception and evasion of road hazards. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(3), 490–500.
22.
ZhangY.AngellL.PalaS.HaraT.VangD. (2017). Can You Still Look Up? Remote Rotary Controller vs. Touchscreen. SAE Technical Paper 2017-01-1386. Warrendale, PA: SAE International.
