Influence of in Car Navigation Map Displays on Drivers Performances

Labiale, G

doi:10.4271/891683

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was found that a driver's average glance time is 1.28 s. Additionally, the guidelines included in French's paper indicate that glance times greater than 2 s are unsafe and unacceptable, while glance times between 1 and 2 s are considered marginally safe, and glance times under 1 s are considered safe. The information regarding glance time data was confirmed by Labiale (1989), who also found that the average glance times were 1.28 s, while 92.3 percent of all glances studied were less than 2 s.…”

mentioning

confidence: 71%

“…It was found that drivers' average glance time is 1.28 s. From the results of this study, French determined that glance times greater than 2 s were unsafe and unacceptable, glance times between 1 and 2 s were marginally safe, and glance times under 1 s were considered to be safe. Labiale (1989) focused on the different methods of displaying road navigation maps and their influence on the cognitive performance of driving tasks. The results of this study indicated that whether or not the vehicle was in motion, maps displayed with written guidance produced a greater percentage of recall.…”

Section: Trip Status Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many authors have found that giving turn-by-turn directions via the auditory channel leads to quicker travel times, fewer wrong turns, and lower workload. Auditory displays also allow the driver to devote more attention to the primary task of driving, compared with route information being displayed on a visual map (Labiale, 1989(Labiale, , 1990Parks, Ashby, and Fairclough, 1991;Streeter, Vitello, and Wonsiewicz, 1985;McKnight and McKnight, 1992). Additional evidence supports the notion that driving performance suffers when drivers are looking simultaneously at in-vehicle displays.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Development of human factors guidelines for Advanced Traveler Information Systems and Commercial Vehicle Operations: Identification of the strengths and weaknesses of alternative information display formats

Hulse¹,

Dingus²,

Mollenhauer³

et al. 1998

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report is one of a series produced as part of a contract designed to develop precise, detailed, human factors design guidelines for Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) and Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO). The contractual effort consists of three phases: analytic, empirical, and integration. This report is a product of the analytic phase. Among the other analytic topics discussed in the series are ATIS and CVO system objectives and performance requirements, comparable systems analysis, ATIS/CVO functions, task analysis, alternate systems analysis, driver acceptance, identification and exploration, and definition and prioritization of research studies. This report identifies information display format alternatives for in-vehicle devices for both private and CVO applications and presents a set of human factors design tools designers can use to develop safer and more effective ATIS displays. Also reported are research issues still requiring attention in order to further the goal of this project and to develop useful information format guidelines.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 71%

Section: Trip Status Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development of human factors guidelines for Advanced Traveler Information Systems and Commercial Vehicle Operations: Identification of the strengths and weaknesses of alternative information display formats

Hulse¹,

Dingus²,

Mollenhauer³

et al. 1998

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, French [300] indicated that glance times greater than 2.0s are unsafe and unacceptable, glance times between 1.0s and 2.0s are considered marginally safe, and glance times under 1.0s are considered safe. Furthermore, Labiale [301] found that 92.3% of all glance times were less than 2.0s.…”

Section: Visual Notificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…French [300] and Labiale [301] investigated safety implications associated with driver information systems. The major concern of their research was the average glance time that is considered safe when the driver is looking at an in-vehicle display.…”

Section: Visual Notificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%