advanced auditory cues on mobile phones help keep drivers eyes on the road

1、Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI 13), October 2830, 2013, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.Advanced Auditory Cues on Mobile Phones Help Keep Drivers Eyes on the RoadThomas M GableBruce N WalkerHaifa R MosesRa

2、mitha D ChitloorGeorgiatitute ofGeorgiatitute ofGeorgiatitute ofGeorgiatitute ofTechnology 654 CherryStreetAtlanta GA30332001.404.894.2680Technology 654 CherryStreetAtlanta GA30332001.404.894.8265Technology 654 CherryStreetAtlanta GA30332001.404.894.

3、2680hwrighthulettgatech.edTechnology 654 CherryStreetAtlanta GA30332001.404.894.2680ABSTRACTIn-vehicle technologies can create1. INTRODUCTIONDriver distraction is often defined as a lack of attention towards tasks pertinent to driving, or attention to something not relevant to the d

4、riving task 1. Distracted driving has become a critical issue within the modern driving world, and research on the topic reflects this issue. The present study adds to this body of research by investigating the effects of advanced auditory cues on visual fixation while performing an in-vehicle task.

5、 The research aims to deepen our understanding of the effects of performing secondary tasks while driving, and attempts to increase the safety of doing so through the application of auditory cues.Distraction can be separated into exogenous distractionobjects or events external to the driving task th

6、at capture drivers gaze and endogenous distractioncognitive activity unrelated to the driving task 1. In order to investigate the visual and mental demands of endogenous distraction tasks, Recarte and Nunes had participants perform varying levels of mentally demanding tasks while driving. Results sh

7、owed increased mental workload and a negative effect on driving-related visual fixations, when mental tasks made the endogenous workload higher than a baseline. These results suggest decreased situational awareness when driving due to less fixation time towards the driving-related information, which

8、 could reduce driving performance and safety. Other studies have employed endogenous mental tasks to investigate the effects of distraction while driving, with analogous results of decreased driving performance, most recently focusing on the effects of talking on a cell phone 2, 3.The direct visual

9、demand created through exogenous distraction is often easier to study than endogenous distraction, and thus easier to potentially solve. Recent interest in this type of distraction research has been visual interaction with mobile devices such as cell phones, particularly while texting and driving. D

10、rews, Yazdani, Godfrey, Cooper, and Strayer 3 found negative impacts on performance of simulated driving, including slower brake response time, increased number of unintentional lane departures and an increase in crashes when participants used a cell phone, compared to when they did not. Equivalent

11、studies have found similar decrements of driving performance, and the use of eye-tracking has shown significant decreases in road viewing time and increases in within-vehicle glances in conditions with secondary tasks as compared to control conditions 4, 5. Even when participants used a system integ

12、rated into the vehicle to create and send text messages in place of a handheld phone, the interior viewing time was still significantly greater than baseline driving performance 6. Although these results are applicable to driving safety, mobile communication (e.g., texting) may not bedangerous situa

13、tions throughdriver distraction. In recent years, research has focused on driverdistraction through communications technologies, but others, such as scrolling through a list of songs or names, can also carry high attention demands. Research has revealed that the use of advanced auditory cues for in-

14、vehicle technology interaction can decrease cognitive demand and improve driver performance when compared to a visual-only system. This paper discusses research investigating the effects of applying advanced auditory cues to a search task on a mobile device while driving, particularly focusing on vi

15、sual fixation. Twenty-six undergraduates performed a search task through a list of 150 songs on a cell phone while performing the lane change task, wearing eye-tracking glasses. Eye-tracking data, performance, workload, and preferences for six conditions were collected. Compared to no sound, visual

16、fixation time on driving and preferences were found to be significantly higher for the advanced auditory cue of spindex. Results suggest more visual availability for driving when the spindex cue is applied to the search task and provides further evidence that these advancedauditory cues can lessen d

17、istraction from driving mobile devices to search for items in lists.whileusingCategories and Subject DescriptorsH.5.2 Information Interfaces And Presentation (e.g., HCI): User Interfaces Auditory (non-speech) feedback, graphical user interfaces (GUI), interaction styles (e.g., commands, menus, forms

18、, direct manipulation), user-centered design, voice I/O;H.5.1 Information Interfaces And Presentation (e.g., HCI): Multimedia Information Systems audio input/outputGeneral TermsPerformance, Design, Experimentation, Human Factors.KeywordsDriving, Mobile Device, Auditory Cues, Menu Navigation, Dual Ta

19、sk, Eye-Tracking, Visual Demand, Cognitive Demand.Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the fu

20、ll citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions

21、from P.AutomotiveUI 13, October 28 - 30 2013, Eindhoven, Netherlands Copyright 2013 ACM 978-1-4503-2478-6/13/10$15.00./10.1145/2516540.251654166Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Autom

22、otiveUI 13), October 2830, 2013, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.the most common action distracting drivers. Other technologies, such as in-vehicle dashboard “infotainment” technologies and personal navigation devices, can also distract 7, 8.List selection, such as finding a song or contact on a phone or

23、 mp3 device, is often performed within a driving context. Smartphones and mp3 players prevalence has increased in the past years, as has their use and popularity within the vehicle. In a recent Australian survey, 41 percent of those who owned an mp3 player used it while driving 9. However, compared

24、to in-vehicle radio systems, smartphones and mp3 players were not designed with driving as a primary task in mind. Their forms of interaction, such as kinetic flicking, wherein a user “flicks” the screen to move the list and then presses on an object to select it, can be more detrimental to the driv

25、ing task than standard in-vehicle technologies 10, 11. Research investigating the use of handheld devices for song selection while driving has found significant decreases in time of fixation on the road and decreases in driving performance measures 10, 12, 13. These decrements are particularly notab

26、le in longer playlists, and attempts to replace handheld mp3 players with aftermarket devices do not seem to decrease the effects 13. Harvey and Carden 14 found that using these handheld technologies while driving increases driver anxiety; Chisholm, Caird, and Lockhart 10 discovered that short- term

27、 practice on the dual task situation improved performance on the driving task, but not enough to match the baseline condition. Although these studies have investigated the results of driving and interacting with in-vehicle technologies and quick fixes to addresswould not need to look at the task as

28、often. In particular, a speech- based cue, a natural and easy way to interpret information, could be used in order to diminish mental demand. Recarte and Nunes1 found that listening to audio messages and determining if they made sense did not create a large difference in visual search habits on a pr

29、imary task or cognitive demand, showing that speech output creates limited costs to visual and mental demand.An example of an auditory-based system can be seenodnik,Dicke, Tomai, and Billinghurst 20 where two novel auditory systems for interaction with a mobile device in a car were createdand compar

30、ed to a standard visual interface. The systems applied spatial audio and speech to display menu options and allowed for interaction with the system using a device mounted near the steering wheel. When using auditory-based systems participants were found to have lower cognitive demand and superior dr

31、iving performance than when using the visual-based systems, as well as having equivalent task completion time as the visual-based system. Additionally, subjects preferred the speech systems for the tasks and found them easier to use. In a similar study Zhao et al. 21 found that in comparison to a vi

32、sual-only system, auditory feedback decreased some of the driver distraction and risk involved in menu selection while driving.Speed in completing the secondary tasks is also a factor involved in a drivers choice of auditory or visual output 22. Brumby, Davies, Janssen, and Grace 22 found that when

33、speed was encouraged, participants would use visuals over an auditory system to quickly complete a search task, resulting in a decrement to driving performance. However, when participants were encouraged to focus on driving, they were more likely to use the slower, audio-based system. Considering th

34、at using an auditory system for a long list could take a while to go through, and drivers often want to finish a secondary task quickly, auditory cues applied in a long search task must expedite searching abilities. Such cues exist in the form of “spindex” and “spearcons,” speech- based auditory cue

35、s created for list navigation. A spindex (i.e., speech index) is defined as a short non-speech auditory cue based on the pronunciation of the first letter of each menu item 23. A spearcon is a brief sound produced by speeding up a spoken phrase, even to the point where the resulting sound may no lon

36、ger be comprehensible as a spoken word 24.Previous research applying these types of speech-based auditory cues to a single task situation of list navigation using multiple types of manual interaction, including flicking, wheeling, andthe issue, limited research has investigated remedy.a design-based

37、One solution would be to investigate whether the visual layout of displays is poorly designed for in-vehicle systems, and redesign systems if needed. Mitsopoulos-Rubens, Trotter, and Lenne 15 tested the mental demand and distraction created by three new interfaces for an in-vehicle music system. Par

38、ticipants operated the interfaces while performing the Lane Change Task, a widely used measure of driving performance 16. Results pointed toward an overarching significant decrease in driving performance for all conditions, as compared with the control condition of no search task. Although preferenc

39、es and subjective workload did show differences between some of the interface designs, none of the interfaces decreased demand to the point of no search task.Another method to decrease cognitive and visual demand caused by using technologies while driving is to employ speech to input information to

40、the system in place of touch and visual interaction. Speech interaction improves driving performance, reduces time spent looking away from the driving task, and decreases subjective workload, as compared to a touch-based system 17, 18. However, Maciej and Vollrath 18 found that the levels of perform

41、ance, workload, and visual distraction were still not equal to driving without performing the search or entry task for most drivers, and Garay-Vega et al. 17 found that the multi-layer voice interface, a standard in most systems, caused participants to take significantly longer to complete the song

42、selection task.An additional option would be to apply auditory cues to a search task to decrease visual demands on the driver, thereby reducing the negative impact on driving and possibly the cognitive demand. Multiple resource theory is often used to explain the benefits of applying multimodal info

43、rmation to a multitasking situation 19. According to the theory, auditory cues decrease visual demand; this leaves more resources to be applied to the primary driving task. This type of interaction could allow for the speed of touch- based interactions with much less visual demand, as a drivertappin

44、g, resultedignificantly faster search times and lowersubjective workloads, compared to the search task with no auditory cues using the same input methods 25. Within thedriving context, these cues show promise in multiple settings, including decreasing item selection times, decreasing cognitive workl

45、oads, and increasing preferences for the auditory-enhanced systems over a visual-only interaction method when searching on an in-vehicle infotainment system and performing a driving-like task 26, and a driving task in a mid-fidelity simulator 27.Although these studies have shed light on some of the

46、benefits of adding advanced auditory cues to list searching devices, the reasons cues improve performance and decrease cognitive demand, compared to visuals-only systems, are not clear. One likely explanation for increased performance is higher availability of fixation time toward the primary task,

47、which studies with these advanced cues have not investigated. However, previous studies, as discussed above, have seen similar trends to Jeon et al. 27 of decreased cognitive workload and increased driving performance67Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and

48、 Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI 13), October 2830, 2013, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.when fixation time on a secondary task was decreased through an improvement of the secondary task system. This could mean that addition of advanced auditory cues increases visual fixation time on th

49、e primary task, and could increase driving safety, but this idea has not been confirmed.The current research was an attempt to investigate the effects of advanced auditory cues on visual fixation. By implementing eye- tracking measures, this research investigated the visual effects of applying advan

50、ced auditory cues to a secondary search task performed during driving, as compared to performing the secondary search task with no auditory cues. The research was also the first to use these auditory cues to improve driving performance while interacting with kinetic flicking on a mobile device. It w

51、as hypothesized that the control condition of no search task would have higher driving performance, higher time of eyes on the road, and lower cognitive load than the search task conditions. However, it was also hypothesized that the application of each of the advanced auditory cues as compared to t

52、he visual- only search condition would increase driving performance and visual fixation towards the primary driving task. Cognitive demand was also expected to decrease when the auditory cues were applied, as compared to visual-only. Based on previous work 27, it was expected that the spindex+TTS co

53、ndition, and the spindex+spearcon+TTS condition would show the highest performance increase on the driving and search task, and have the lowest level of visual demand on the secondary search task. The number of correct songs found and selected during the drive was also hypothesized to be higher duri

54、ng the trials with advanced auditory cues.2. METHOD2.1 ParticipantsThe sample was composed of 32 participants; however, due to software crashes during the study, 6 participants data were removed from the study due to incomplete trials, leaving a total of 26 participants (8 females) with mean age of

55、20 years for analysis.Figure 1. An individual performing the primary driving task and secondary task of navigation a list of songs.2.2.2 Search TaskThe secondary task of searching for a song was performed on a Google Nexus One HTC1 Android smartphone with 3.75-inch resistive touch screen running And

56、roid OS version 2.3.6. The application used for this song-finding task was designed to be similar to modern mp3 and cell phone lists, applying the current day standard interaction method known as kinetic scrolling wherein a flicking motion is made on the screen to move the list down and then a song

57、is touched to select it. The application took150 song names from the iTunes Top 100 and Billboard Hot 100/Pop 100 in 2009 to make up the list. The song list wassubdivided into 6 baccording to how far down the list theywere. Each condition had a set order of songs that were requested,which were creat

58、ed by randomly choosing a song from each binwith a song being chosen from each of the 6 b could be chosen from again.before a binFollowing the activation of the application, a song name was spoken aloud to the participant through speakers and was displayed at the top of the phones screen. The user, starting at the top of the list, then searched through the list and selected the requested song. After a four-second delay, another song name was requested. If the wrong song was selected it was counted as an error and a new song was given as it would if the participant chose