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

He, Jibo; Choi, William; McCarley, Jason S.; Chaparro, Barbara S.; Wang, Chun

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2015.03.033

Cited by 63 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In studies comparing visually distracting tasks to cognitive distracting tasks, texting resulted in more variability in lateral position on the roadway compared to phone conversation (Stavrinos et al., , ), no distraction (Drews et al., ; He et al., ; Narad et al., ; Stavrinos et al., ), and using Google Glass (He et al., ; Sawyer et al., ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Across studies, visually demanding mobile technology tasks (texting) diverted drivers' attention from the forward roadway (Farmer, Klauer, McClafferty, & Guo, 2015a;Foss & Goodwin, 2014;Greenberg et al, 2003;Hosking, Young, & Regan, 2009;Kingery et al, 2015;Neale, Dingus, Klauer, Sudweeks, & Goodman, 2005;Wikman et al, 1998). The effect of texting on response time produced mixed results, with several studies suggesting it significantly slowed driver response (Drews, Yazdani, Godfrey, Cooper, & Strayer, 2009;He, Choi, McCarley, Chaparro, & Wang, 2015;Sawyer, Finomore, Calvo, & Hancock, 2014;Simons-Morton et al, 2015) and one reporting no effect (Hosking et al, 2009). Sending text messages led to more lane position variability and more lane excursions (Hosking et al, 2009), behaviors, which were mediated by extended eye glances off the road (Kingery et al, 2015).…”

Section: Driving and Distractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Distracted Walking, Bicycling, and Driving: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Mobile Technology and Youth Crash Risk

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examined the impact of mobile technology on young pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. A systematic search yielded 41 articles meeting inclusion criteria: peer-reviewed, published before February 1, 2016, behavioral outcome related to pedestrian, bicycling, or driving in the presence of mobile technology use, youth sample. Eleven studies were meta-analyzed to evaluate increased risk for crash/near-crash while distracted. Risk of bias and quality of research were assessed. Across methodologies, developmental stages, and type of distracting task, mobile technology use impairs youth safety on the road. Quality of evidence was low (pedestrian) to moderate (driving). Findings are discussed from the perspective of cognitive and visual distractions. Policy and behavioral efforts should continue to reduce mobile technology use in transportation settings.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Driving and Distractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distracted Walking, Bicycling, and Driving: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Mobile Technology and Youth Crash Risk

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is not unreasonable to speculate that these costs might be more severe under increasingly complex, realistic task conditions (e.g., when driving) (Strayer et al, 2003). In simulated environments, GG has produced impairments similar to those present when using a cellular device; however, the performance decrements are less severe (He, Choi, McCarley, Chaparro, & Wang, 2015; Sawyer, Finomore, Calvo, & Hancock, 2014). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Through the Google Glass: The impact of heads-up displays on visual attention

Lewis

Neider

2016

Cogn. Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In five experiments, we evaluated how secondary information presented on a heads-up display (HUD) impacts performance of a concurrent visual attention task. To do so, we had participants complete a primary visual search task under a variety of secondary load conditions (a single word presented on Google Glass during each search trial). Processing of secondary information was measured through a recognition memory task. Other manipulations included relevance (Experiments 1–4) and temporal onset of secondary information relative to the primary task (Experiment 3). Secondary information was always disruptive to the visual search, regardless of temporal onset and even when participants were instructed to ignore it. These patterns were evident in search tasks reflective of both selective (Experiments 1–3) and preattentive (Experiment 4) attentional mechanisms, and were not a result of onset-offset attentional capture (Experiment 5). Recognition memory for secondary information was always above chance. Our findings suggest that HUD-based visual information is profoundly disruptive to attentional processes and largely immune to user-centric prioritization.

show abstract

“…Field defects caused by wearing HMD devices have been described, and their use has been shown to critically alter a person's natural visual gait control . Distraction and attentional issues have also been highlighted, with the use of Glass for messaging resulting in impaired driving performance . In this study we examine another potential way in which normal visual function might be compromised during wear – that the display might act as a glare source, resulting in disability glare (DG) due to intraocular scatter.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%