Comparing the Relative Impact of Smartwatch and Smartphone Use While Driving on Workload, Attention, and Driving Performance

Samost, Aubrey; Perlman, D.; Domel, August G.; Reimer, Bryan; Mehler, Alea; McWilliams, Thomas

doi:10.1177/1541931215591347

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…to the mirrors, instrument cluster) occur during interactions with a voice-based interface than a visual-manual interface. Further, voice-based systems have been shown to have a lower impact on detection response tasks than primary visual-manual alternatives (Beckers et al 2014; Munger et al 2014; Samost et al 2015). These findings illustrate a need to consider where off-the-road a driver’s attention is focused in the assessment of voice-based interfaces.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…heart rate) and other assessments of cognitive load (e.g. detection response task) are impacted to a lesser degree by voice interfaces than by visual-manual interfaces (Beckers et al 2014; Chiang, Brooks, and Weir 2005; Mehler et al 2014; Munger et al 2014; Owens, McLaughlin, and Sudweeks 2010; Reimer, Mehler, Dobres, et al 2013; Reimer et al 2014; Samost et al 2015; Shutko et al 2009). Not surprisingly, these studies also largely show that the demands of any secondary activity are greater than just driving alone.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multi-modal demands of a smartphone used to place calls and enter addresses during highway driving relative to two embedded systems

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is limited research on trade-offs in demand between manual and voice interfaces of embedded and portable technologies. Mehler et al. identified differences in driving performance, visual engagement and workload between two contrasting embedded vehicle system designs (Chevrolet MyLink and Volvo Sensus). The current study extends this work by comparing these embedded systems with a smartphone (Samsung Galaxy S4). None of the voice interfaces eliminated visual demand. Relative to placing calls manually, both embedded voice interfaces resulted in less eyes-off-road time than the smartphone. Errors were most frequent when calling contacts using the smartphone. The smartphone and MyLink allowed addresses to be entered using compound voice commands resulting in shorter eyes-off-road time compared with the menu-based Sensus but with many more errors. Driving performance and physiological measures indicated increased demand when performing secondary tasks relative to ‘just driving’, but were not significantly different between the smartphone and embedded systems. Practitioner Summary: The findings show that embedded system and portable device voice interfaces place fewer visual demands on the driver than manual interfaces, but they also underscore how differences in system designs can significantly affect not only the demands placed on drivers, but also the successful completion of tasks.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-modal demands of a smartphone used to place calls and enter addresses during highway driving relative to two embedded systems

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As we continue to interact with our ever-changing screens more frequently, and in shorter bursts-the smartphone is already giving way to the even smaller, more immediate smartwatch and other wearable technologies (Samost et al 2015;Sawyer et al 2014;Beckers et al 2017),-glance-reading takes centre stage. While this new type of reading might be second nature to Millennials, who tend to be acutely aware of how new technologies work, what does this mean for older people who have years of experience with traditional long-form reading?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The great typography bake-off: comparing legibility at-a-glance

Sawyer¹,

Dobres

Chahine

2020

Ergonomics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Typography plays an increasingly important role in today's dynamic digital interfaces. Graphic designers and interface engineers have more typographic options than ever before. Sorting through this maze of design choices can be a daunting task. Here we present the results of an experiment comparing differences in glance-based legibility between eight popular sans-serif typefaces. The results show typography to be more than a matter of taste, especially in safety critical contexts such as in-vehicle interfaces. Our work provides both a method and rationale for using glanceable typefaces, as well as actionable information to guide design decisions for optimised usability in the fast-paced mobile world in which information is increasingly consumed in a few short glances. Practitioner summary: There is presently no accepted scientific method for comparing font legibility under time-pressure, in 'glanceable' interfaces such as automotive displays and smartphone notifications. A 'bake-off' method is demonstrated with eight popular sans-serif typefaces. The results produce actionable information to guide design decisions when information must be consumed at-a-glance.

show abstract

“…According to several studies, text entry with a touch screen keyboard is among the most visually distracting in-car tasks for the driver (e.g., [17,28,24]). Yet, it seems that many drivers are willing to take the risk, as it seems that short messaging with a smartphone is among the most popular in-Following these lines of thought, a novel distraction testing method, introduced by Kujala and Mäkelä [15] was used in our study to evaluate and compare the visual distraction potential of the three text entry methods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual Distraction Effects of In-Car Text Entry Methods

Kujala

Grahn

2017

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

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three text entry methods were compared in a driving simulator study with 17 participants. Ninety-seven drivers' occlusion distance (OD) data mapped on the test routes was used as a baseline to evaluate the methods' visual distraction potential. Only the voice recognition-based text entry tasks passed the set verification criteria. Handwriting tasks were experienced as the most demanding and the voice recognition tasks as the least demanding. An individual in-car glance length preference was found, but against expectations, drivers' ODs did not correlate with incar glance lengths or visual short-term memory capacity. The handwriting method was further studied with 24 participants with instructions and practice on writing eyeson-road. The practice did not affect the test results. The findings suggest that handwriting could be visually less demanding than touch screen typing but the reliability of character recognition should be improved or the driver well-experienced with the method to minimize its distraction potential.

show abstract

Comparing the Relative Impact of Smartwatch and Smartphone Use While Driving on Workload, Attention, and Driving Performance

Cited by 13 publications

References 11 publications

Multi-modal demands of a smartphone used to place calls and enter addresses during highway driving relative to two embedded systems

Multi-modal demands of a smartphone used to place calls and enter addresses during highway driving relative to two embedded systems

The great typography bake-off: comparing legibility at-a-glance

Visual Distraction Effects of In-Car Text Entry Methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About