Visual-manual demand placed on drivers through interactions with operational functions, embedded telematics, infotainment systems, and nomadic technologies has raised concerns associated with diverting attention from the roadway. This analysis draws on data from field studies of five different infotainment systems representing a range of screen placements and control characteristics that diverge in significant ways from the relatively standard car radio layout of previous generations. Participants performed a set of classic visual-manual radio tuning tasks under highway driving conditions. There were significant differences in task completion time, number of off-road glances, mean single off-road glance duration, and total off-road glance time across vehicles. These results highlight that the range of configurations appearing in modern infotainment systems have changed the extent to which they can be used in the classic radio tuning task to provide a standard demand benchmark.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. (2006). Statement of Principles, Criteria and Verification Procedure on Driver Interactions with Advanced In-Vehicle Information and Communication Systems. Washington, D.C.
2.
ChiangD.P.BrooksA.M.WeirD.H. (2005). Comparison of visual-manual and voice interaction with contemporary navigation system HMIs (Paper No. 2005-01-0433). SAE 2005 World Congress & Exhibition. Warrendale, PA: SAE International.
3.
DingusT.A. (1987). Attentional demand evaluation for an automobile moving-map navigation system. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
4.
DobresJ.ReimerB.MehlerB.FoleyJ.EbeK.SeppeltB.AngellL. (2016). The influence of driver’s age on glance allocations during single-task driving and voice vs. visual-manual radio tuning. SAE Technical Paper 2016-01-1445.
5.
DobresJ.ReimerB.ParikhalL.WeanE.ChahineN. (2015). The incredible shrinking letter: how font size affects the legibility of text viewed in brief glances. 8th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, Salt Lake City, UT, 429-435.
6.
ISO 15007-1. (2002). Road Vehicles – Measurement of Driver VisualBehaviour with Respect to Transport Information and Control Systems – Part 1: Definitions and Parameters. Geneva: International Standards Organization.
7.
ISO 15007-2. (2001). Road Vehicles – Measurement of Driver Visual Behaviour with Respect to Transport Information and Control Systems – Part 2: Equipment and Procedures. Geneva: International Standards Organization.
8.
Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA) (2004). Guideline for in-vehicle display systems, Version 3.0.
9.
KlauerS.FengG.Simons-MortonB.OuimetM.LeeS.DingusT. (2014). Distracted driving and risk of road crashes among novice and experienced drivers. New England Journal of Medicine, 370 (1), 54–59.
10.
LoV. E.-W.GreenP. A. (2013). Development and evaluation of automotive speech interfaces: useful information from the human factors and the related literature. International Journal of Vehicular Technology, 1–13.
11.
LiangY.LeeJ. D.YekhshatyanL. (2012). How dangerous is looking away from the road? Algorithms predict crash risk from glance patterns in naturalistic driving. Human Factors, 54(6), 1104–1116.
12.
MaciejJ.VollrathM. (2009). Comparison of manual vs. speech-based interaction with in-vehicle information systems. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(5), 924–930.
13.
MehlerB.KiddD.ReimerB.ReaganI.DobresJ.McCarttA. (2016a). Multi-modal assessment of on-road demand of voice and manual phone calling and voice navigation entry across two embedded vehicle systems. Ergonomics, 59(3), 344-367. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2015.1081412
14.
MehlerB.ReimerB.DobresJ.CoughlinJ.F. (2015a). Assessing the Demands of Voice Based In-Vehicle Interfaces - Phase II Experiment 3 - 2015 Toyota Corolla. MIT AgeLab Technical Report 2015-14. MIT, Cambridge, MA. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2244.3921
15.
MehlerB.ReimerB.DobresJ.FoleyJ.EbeK. (2016b). Additional findings on the multi-modal demands of production level “voice-command” interfaces. SAE Technical Paper 2016-01-1428. doi: 10.427/2016-01-1428
16.
MehlerB.ReimerB.DobresJ.McAnultyH.CoughlinJ.F. (2015b). Assessing the Demands of Voice Based In-Vehicle Interfaces - Phase II Experiment 1 - 2014 Chevrolet Impala. MIT AgeLab Technical Report 2015-6A. MIT, Cambridge, MA. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3686.1841
17.
MehlerB.ReimerB.McAnultyH.DobresJ.LeeJ.CoughlinJ.F. (2015c). Assessing the Demands of Voice Based In-Vehicle Interfaces - Phase II Experiment 2 - 2014 Mercedes CLA. MIT AgeLab Technical Report 2015-8. MIT, Cambridge, MA. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3686.1841
18.
NHTSA (2013). Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices (No. NHTSA-2010-0053). Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
19.
PerezM.OwensJ.ViitaD.AngellA.RanneyT. A.BaldwinG. H. S.ParmerE.MartinJ.GarrottW. R.MazzaeE. N. (2013). Radio tuning effects on visual and driving performance – Simulator and test track studies. (Report No. DOT HS 811 781). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
20.
ReganM. A.YoungK. L.LeeJ. D.GordonC. P. (2009). Source of Driver Distraction. In Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation (pp. 249–278). Boca Raton, FL: CRCPress.
ReimerB.MehlerB.DobresJ.CoughlinJ.F. (2013). The effects of a production level “voice-command” interface on driver behavior: reported workload, physiology, visual attention, and driving performance. MIT AgeLab Technical Report No. 2013-17A. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
23.
ReimerB.MehlerB.DobresJ.McAnultyH.MehlerA.MunderD.RumpoldA. (2014b, September). Effects of an “expert mode” voice command system on task performance, glance behavior & driver physiology. Proceedings of the 6Th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicle Applications. Seattle, WA.
24.
ReimerB.MehlerB.ReaganI.KiddD.DobresJ. (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. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2016.1154189
25.
SeppeltB.SeamanS.LeeJ.AngellL.S.MehlerB.ReimerB. (2017). Glass half-full: use of on-road glance metrics to differentiate crashes from near-crashes in the 100-car data. Manuscript under review.
26.
SmithD. L.ChangJ.GlasscoR.FoleyJ.CohenD. (2005). Methodology for capturing driver eye glance behavior during in- vehicle secondary tasks. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1937(1), 61-65.
27.
StrayerD. L.TurrillJ.ColemanJ. R.OrtizE. VCooperJ. M. (2014). Measuring cognitive distraction in the automobile II: assessing in-vehicle voice-based interactive technologies. AAA-FTS, Washington, D.C
28.
SuchmanE., A. (1939). Radio listening and automobiles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 23(1), 148-157.
29.
VictorT.DozzaJ.BärgmanJ.BodaC.EngströmJ.FlannaganC.LeeJ.MarkkulaG. (2014). Analysis of naturalistic driving study data: safer glances, driver inattention, and crash risk. SHRP 2 Report (S2-S08A-RW-1). Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
