A Usability and Safety Study of Bone-Conduction Headphones During Driving while Listening to Audiobooks

Abstract

Bone-conduction technology has been around since the 1800s but using this technology in headphones is relatively new. Bone-conduction transmits sound through the bones of the skull. This research compared the effect of different auditory delivery methods (bone-conduction versus traditional air-conduction) on driving performance, story comprehension, and subjective workload. Results showed that auditory delivery method did not significantly affect driving performance or story comprehension. This supports one of the hypotheses that bone-conduction headphones are no more distracting than air-conduction speakers. There were significant differences in workload between driving conditions compared to non-driving conditions, but there was no difference in workload between bone-conduction headphones in driving conditions. Bone-conduction headphones do not impair story comprehension and may leave the ear canal open making it a viable option for use while driving.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Becic

Dell

G. S.

Bock

Garnsey

S. M.

Kubose

Kramer

A. F.

(2010). Driving impairs talking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 15–21.

Buroojy

T. W.

(2009). U.S. Patent Application No. 12/167,786.

Cao

Liu

(2013). Concurrent processing of vehicle lane keeping and speech comprehension tasks. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 59, 46–54.

Chang-Geun

Lee

Spencer

(2011). Effectiveness of advanced bone conduction earphones for people who enjoy outdoor activities. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 55, 1788–1792.

Dossier (2017, April) E-commerce. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/249854/audiobook-industry-size-in-the-us/

Hart

S. G.

Staveland

L. E.

(1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Hancock

P. A.

Meshkati

(Eds.), Advances in Psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Chaparro

Nguyen

Burge

R. J.

Crandall

Chaparro

Cao

(2014). Texting while driving: Is speech-based text entry less risky than handheld text entry?. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 72, 287–295.

Koreimann

Gula

Vitouch

(2014). Inattentional deafness in music. Psychological Research, 78, 304–312.

Levy

Pashler

(2008). Task prioritisation in multitasking during driving: Opportunity to abort a concurrent task does not insulate braking responses from dual-task slowing. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 507–525.

10.

Macdonald

J. S.

Lavie

(2011). Visual perceptual load induces inattentional deafness. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 1780–1789.

11.

May

K. R.

Walker

B. N.

(2017). The effects of distractor sounds presented through bone conduction headphones on the localization of critical environmental sounds. Applied Ergonomics, 61, 144–158.

12.

McBride

Hodges

French

(2008). Speech intelligibility differences of male and female vocal signals transmitted through bone-conduction in background noise: Implications for voice communication headset design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 38, 1038–1044.

13.

Molloy

Griffiths

T. D.

Chait

Lavie

(2015). Inattentional deafness: visual load leads to time-specific suppression of auditory evoked responses. Journal of Neuroscience, 35, 16046–16054.

14.

Raveh

Lavie

(2015). Load-induced inattentional deafness. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 483–492.

15.

Richards

(2017, June 7) Audiobooks continues double-digit growth. Retrieved from https://www.audiopub.org/uploads/pdf/APAC2017PR_final.pdf

16.

Strayer

D. L.

Drews

F. A.

(2007). Cell-phone–induced driver distraction. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 128–131.

17.

Strayer

D. L.

Johnston

W. A.

(2001). Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone. Psychological Science, 12, 462–466.

18.

Wickens

C. D.

(1980). The structure of attentional resources. Attention and Performance VIII, 8, 239–257.

19.

Wickens

C. D.

(2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 159–177.

20.

Wickens

C.D.

Derrick

W.D.

Micallizi

Beringer

(1980). The structure of processing resources. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 24, 253–256.

21.

Wickens

C. D.

Sandry

D. L.

Vidulich

(1983). Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, central processing, and output. Human Factors, 25, 227–248.

22.

Zeelenberg

Pecher

(2015). A method for simultaneously counterbalancing condition order and assignment of stimulus materials to conditions. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 127–133.