Comparison of speech-based in-car HMI concepts in a driving simulation study

Hofmann, Hansjörg; Tobisch, Vanessa; Ehrlich, Ute; Berton, André; Mahr, Angela

doi:10.1145/2557500.2557509

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Kumar et al, 2012). The Subjective Assessment of Speech System Interface (SASSI) and the Driving Activity Load Index (DALI) were both used once within the same paper (Hofmann et al, 2014). The Observations of participants' interaction behaviour were also common (N=36).…”

Section: Data Collection Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…recall of system outputs (Knutsen et al, 2017)). Physiological data was assessed with measure including eye tracking (Hofmann, Tobisch, Ehrlich, Berton, & Mahr, 2014), or loudness of speech (Lunsford, Oviatt, & Coulston, 2005). Other measures included system recognition of user input (e.g.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SASSI (Hone & Graham, 2000)), although these need further validity testing (Hone, 2014;Hone & Graham, 2000). We were surprised to see that, although SASSI was deployed once in the reviewed papers (Hofmann et al, 2014), the scale has rarely been used in HCI publications. The field therefore needs to make a concerted effort in developing well-validated, reliable subjective measures for more UX related dimensions in speech interaction.…”

Section: Improving Measure Reliability Validity and Consistencymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The State of Speech in HCI: Trends, Themes and Challenges

Clark

Doyle

Garaialde

et al. 2019

Interacting With Computers

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech interfaces are growing in popularity. Through a review of 68 research papers this work maps the trends, themes, findings and methods of empirical research on speech interfaces in HCI. We find that most studies are usability/theory-focused or explore wider system experiences, evaluating Wizard of Oz, prototypes, or developed systems by using self-report questionnaires to measure concepts like usability and user attitudes. A thematic analysis of the research found that speech HCI work focuses on nine key topics: system speech production, modality comparison, user speech production, assistive technology & accessibility, design insight, experiences with interactive voice response (IVR) systems, using speech technology for development, people's experiences with intelligent personal assistants (IPAs) and how user memory affects speech interface interaction. From these insights we identify gaps and challenges in speech research, notably the need to develop theories of speech interface interaction, grow critical mass in this domain, increase design work, and expand research from single to multiple user interaction contexts so as to reflect current use contexts. We also highlight the need to improve measure reliability, validity and consistency, in the wild deployment and reduce barriers to building fully functional speech interfaces for research. Author Keywords Speech interfaces; speech HCI; review; speech technology; voice user interfaces Research Highlights• Most papers focused on usability/theory-based or wider system experience research with a focus on Wizard of Oz and developed systems, though a lack of design work • Questionnaires on usability and user attitudes often used but few were reliable or validated • Thematic analysis showed nine primary research topics • Gaps in research critical mass, speech HCI theories, and multiple user contexts

show abstract

Section: Data Collection Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Improving Measure Reliability Validity and Consistencymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The State of Speech in HCI: Trends, Themes and Challenges

Clark

Doyle

Garaialde

et al. 2019

Interacting With Computers

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of speech has also been popularised as a human-vehicle interface in the automotive domain. While this is most often associated with alleviating concerns of driver distraction and cognitive load [18], it can also create a more natural user experience [1,5]. Moreover, given aforementioned literature, it would appear feasible that interacting using natural, spoken language (with a vehiclebased agent as the conversational partner) could also influence occupants' perception of the vehicle itself (and by association, the technology it proffers), with initial investigations already providing some support for this hypothesis [2].…”

Section: Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

"It's small talk, jim, but not as we know it."

Large

Clark

Burnett

et al. 2019

Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of speech has been popularised as a human-vehicle interface in the automotive domain. While this is most often associated with alleviating concerns of driver distraction and cognitive load, the study explores whether the presence of conversation could, in and of itself, engender trust in the technology, based on our understanding of speech in humans. Thirty-four participants were transported in a fully-autonomous, self-driving 'pod' vehicle, accompanied by a natural-language, conversational interface ('UltraCab'), which was delivered using Wizard-of-Oz methodology. Emergent, trustrelated themes were identified from the conversation that took place between participants and UltraCab, posing the question of whether participants sought an emotional connection with the vehicle, or whether conversation remained primarily functional. Implications for trust and the design of conversational interfaces are discussed. CCS Concepts• Human-centered computing → Natural language interfaces; User studies.

show abstract

“…The GUI should be adapted to the particular dialog strategy in order to benefit from the advantages of the respective strategy the most and to allow for a comparison of optimal systems. This paper reports experimental results from the development and the evaluation of various in-car SDS prototypes and presents follow-on work to the research reported in Hofmann et al (2014). Besides the comparison of different speechbased human-machine interface (HMI) concepts the capabilities of today's speech recognition and understanding technology are of interest.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%