Combined Auditory Warnings For Driving-Related Information

Fagerlönn, Johan; Lindberg, Stefan; Sirkka, Anna

doi:10.1145/2814895.2814924

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To summarize, we evaluated verbal commands and auditory icons that were especially designed for in-vehicle information displays related to aspects of task management and contextupdating in highly automated trucks [21,36]. We were motivated to do so according to the guidelines for auditory displays [46], which states that auditory displays ought to be highly detectable in terms of their physical properties (N1), support learned discrimination from other target notifications (P2), have the potential for capturing attention (P3a), and communicate for its intended purpose (e.g., updating contextual working memory; P3b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To begin, while some studies have found faster responses for verbal notification [40,29,21], others found faster responses for auditory icons [24,60]. Other studies have found a response time preference for neither auditory icons nor verbal notifications [44,70].…”

Section: Verbal Commands Versus Auditory Iconsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Behavioral studies have mixed results given that they tend to differ depending on the experimental task and context. The notifications that are used here were designed for an auditory display of a highly automated truck environment [36], for which verbal commands have been claimed to deliver faster responses than auditory icons [21]. However, the underlying reason for this has been unclear.…”

Section: P3bmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The auditory notifications (duration: 500 ms) were adapted from target sounds that were originally designed for the invehicle interface of an autonomous truck cabin [21,36]. There were 12 notifications in total, 6 verbal commands and 6 auditory icons that were complements of each other.…”

Section: Auditory Notificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Use the Right Sound for the Right Job

Glatz

Krupenia

Bülthoff

et al. 2018

Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Design recommendations for notifications are typically based on user performance and subjective feedback. In comparison, there has been surprisingly little research on how designed notifications might be processed by the brain for the information they convey. The current study uses EEG/ERP methods to evaluate auditory notifications that were designed to cue long-distance truck drivers for task-management and driving conditions, particularly for automated driving scenarios. Two experiments separately evaluated naïve students and professional truck drivers for their behavioral and brain responses to auditory notifications, which were either auditory icons or verbal commands. Our EEG/ERP results suggest that verbal commands were more readily recognized by the brain as relevant targets, but that auditory icons were more likely to update contextual working memory. Both classes of notifications did not differ on behavioral measures. This suggests that auditory icons ought to be employed for communicating contextual information and verbal commands, for urgent requests.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%