The Effects of Voice Technology on Test Track Driving Performance: Implications for Driver Distraction

Ranney, Thomas A.; Harbluk, Joanne L.; Smith, Larry; Huener, Kristen; Parmer, Ed; Barickman, Frank

doi:10.1037/e729322011-001

Cited by 10 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings contradict evidence from some steady-state car-following tasks in which drivers under dualtask conditions increase their headway to maintain safety when performing a secondary task (e.g., Strayer et al, 2003;Ranney et al, 2005). With respect to braking distances, drivers might even decrease their safety margin when mentally engaged in another task, relative to single-task conditions.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 80%

“…Specifically, drivers in the dual-task condition did not increase their headway while passing or changing lanes (cf. Strayer et al, 2003;Ranney et al, 2005 in a car-following task).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although concurrent mental tasks typically degrade driving performance (see Horrey & Wickens, 2006), drivers can adjust their driving performance to partially compensate for cognitive impairments, thereby maintaining their safety. For example, drivers engaged in a cell phone conversation or secondary task increased their headway in a car-following situation (Ranney, Harbluk, & Noy, 2005;Strayer & Drews, 2004;Strayer, Drews & Johnston, 2003), a strategy that allows greater room to respond in an emergency (cf. Alm & Nilsson, 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessing Interference from Mental Workload Using a Naturalistic Simulated Driving Task: A Pilot Study

Horrey

Simons²,

Buschmann

et al. 2006

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous work has shown that drivers engaged in concurrent cognitive tasks exhibit some adaptive behaviors to enhance safety, such as increasing their headway distance, despite the fact that other aspects of safety might be compromised. However, these studies often test steady-state behaviors (e.g., car-following) that might not be representative of traffic situations in which drivers' goals and intentions are constantly changing (i.e., involving tactical vehicle control). In two simulator experiments, we examined the impact of mental workload on drivers engaged in a “naturalistic” tactical driving task. In Experiment 1, we explored the safety margins (distances) that drivers maintain between themselves and vehicles around them when completing a passing maneuver. In Experiment 2, we examined safety margins and performance under less constrained, yet more realistic and dynamic conditions. In both experiments, we found no evidence that drivers adjust their safety margins to account for the additional demands of performing a cognitive task. The implications for steady-state experimental scenarios versus more dynamic ones are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 80%

“…Specifically, drivers in the dual-task condition did not increase their headway while passing or changing lanes (cf. Strayer et al, 2003;Ranney et al, 2005 in a car-following task).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing Interference from Mental Workload Using a Naturalistic Simulated Driving Task: A Pilot Study

Horrey

Simons²,

Buschmann

et al. 2006

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a form of secondary task-induced cognitive load, cell phone conversations, in particular, have received significant attention due to legislative concerns over the trend of increased phone use while driving. Researchers have studied listening and speaking aspects of conversation for both hands-free and hand-held implementations and have reached divergent conclusions on the risk of various implementations [2,20,31,34]. In part, these differences depend on selected baselines for calculating risk metrics and on the realism of selected tasks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differentiating Cognitive Load Using a Modified Version of AttenD

Seppelt

Seaman

Angell

et al. 2017

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Voice interfaces offer promise in allowing drivers to keep their eyes on-road and hands on-wheel. In relieving visualmanual demand, there is the potential for voice-enabled interfaces to inadvertently shift the burden of load to cognitive resources. Measurement approaches are needed that can identify when and to what extent cognitive load is present during driving. A modified form of the AttenD algorithm was applied to assess the amount of cognitive load present in a set of auditory-vocal task interactions. These tasks were subset from a larger on-road study conducted in the Boston area of driver response during use of an in-vehicle voice system [22]. The modified algorithm differentiated among the set of auditory-vocal tasks examined-and may be useful to HMI practitioners who are working to develop and evaluate HMIs to support drivers in managing their attention to the road, and in the development of real-time driver attention monitoring systems.

show abstract

“…Specifically, VAD has been linked to better lane keeping (Graham & Carter, 2001;Greenberg et al, 2003;Salvucci & Macuga, 2001) and speed maintenance (Salvucci & Macuga, 2001), glance patterns similar to baseline driving (Schreiner et al, 2004a;2004b), and better performance on peripheral detection tasks (Greenberg et al, 2003;Ranney et al, 2002;Schreiner et al, 2004b) than MD. These findings are summarized in Table 1.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Phone Interface and Dialing Method on Simulated Driving Performance and User Preference

Schreiner

2006

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research on the use of cell phones while driving has attempted to determine if voice-activated dialing differs from manual dialing in terms of driving performance. However, these studies have generally not examined other calling methods (e.g. calling stored nametags) and have not examined the differences between different phone interfaces. The present study examined driver performance and user preference using three different phones with different manual and voice interface applications in a driving simulator. Twelve drivers participated in one two-hour session. Their task was to follow a lead vehicle, maintaining a safe headway and basic control of the vehicle while performing different dialing tasks. Results showed that overall voice dialing resulted in longer task times and higher error rates than manual dialing, but calling a stored nametag by voice resulted in similar task times and error rates as manually calling a stored nametag or manual digit dialing. Findings suggest that manual speed dialing is the preferred method for dialing while driving, and that differences between various phone interfaces can greatly affect driving performances results.

show abstract

The Effects of Voice Technology on Test Track Driving Performance: Implications for Driver Distraction

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Assessing Interference from Mental Workload Using a Naturalistic Simulated Driving Task: A Pilot Study

Assessing Interference from Mental Workload Using a Naturalistic Simulated Driving Task: A Pilot Study

Differentiating Cognitive Load Using a Modified Version of AttenD

The Effect of Phone Interface and Dialing Method on Simulated Driving Performance and User Preference

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About