Comparing the Demands of Destination Entry using Google Glass and the Samsung Galaxy S4

Abstract

A driving simulation study assessed the impact of vocally entering an alpha numeric destination into Google Glass relative to voice and touch-entry methods using a handheld Samsung Galaxy S4 smartphone. Driving performance (standard deviation of lateral lane position and longitudinal velocity) and reaction to a light detection response task (DRT) were recorded for a gender-balanced sample of 24 young adult drivers. Task completion time and subjective workload ratings were also measured. Using Google Glass for destination entry had a statistically higher miss rate than using the Samsung Galaxy S4 voice interface, the Google Glass method took less time to complete, and the two methods were given comparable workload ratings by participants. In agreement with previous work, both voice interfaces performed significantly better than touch entry; this was seen in workload ratings, task duration, lateral lane control, and DRT metrics. Finally, irrespective of device or modality, destination entry significantly decreased responsiveness to events in the forward scene (as measured by the DRT reaction time) as compared to the baseline driving.

Texting while driving using Google Glass™: Promising but not distraction-free

“…However, because of technical issues, this study was not able to provide task duration measurement for the secondary texting task, nor did Sawyer et al (2014)'s work provide such data. The only work on Google Glass, which provided task duration, was done by the MIT AgeLab (Beckers et al, 2014). Beckers et al (2014) used a destination entry task and compared Google Glass, smartphone with Samsung S Voice (a voice-based application, similar to Apple's Siri or Google Now), and smartphone with touch interaction.…”

“…In some studies, interacting with technology through a speech interface allowed better driver performance than manual interaction (Beckers et al, 2014,b;He et al, 2014a,b;Peissner et al, 2011), producing smaller lane deviations, fewer off-road glances, smaller steering variance, and lower cognitive workload (Barón and Green, 2006;Beckers et al, 2014;Owens et al, 2011). In contrast, other studies found no significant benefit to driving performance by using a speech-based interface to replace manual inputs (Ishigami and Klein, 2009).…”

“…Currently, only a few studies on driving with Google Glass have been reported and showed that texting using either smartphone or Google Glass impaired driving performance by increasing hazard response time and reducing safety margins during a lead vehicle brake hazard (Beckers et al, 2014;Sawyer et al, 2014). When compared to smartphone users, drivers wearing Google Glass produced better lane-keeping performance when replying, and were able to return to their normal roadway speed sooner, which suggested a relative advantage of Google Glass over smartphones (Sawyer et al, 2014).…”

Driving While Reading Using Google Glass Versus Using a Smartphone: Which is More Distracting to Driving Performance?

“…Will HMD incur the same costs as HDD, or will they be more comparable to HMD? Safety researchers have only recently begun exploring how Google Glass influences driving performance (Beckers, Schreiner, Bertrand, Reimer, Mehler, Munger, & Dobres, 2014;He, Choi, McCarley, Chaparro, & Wang, under review;Sawyer, Finomore, Calvo, & Hancock, 2014). These studies all used a car-following task and did not assess other aspects of driving performance, such as tactical lane changes.…”

“…These studies all used a car-following task and did not assess other aspects of driving performance, such as tactical lane changes. Additionally, these studies also majorly focused on the speech-recognition feature of Google Glass (Beckers, et al, 2014;Sawyer, et al, 2014)-and they did not examine the costs of using the HMD of Google Glass. We investigated how reading using the see-through HMD of Google Glass influences driving performance, specifically tactical lane change behaviors.…”