Can User-Paced, Menu-free Spoken Language Interfaces Improve Dual Task Handling While Driving?
The use of speech-based interaction over traditional means of interaction in secondary tasks may increase safety in demanding environments with high requirements on operator attention. Speech interfaces have suffered from issues similar to those of visual displays, as they often rely on a complex menu structure that corresponds to that of visual systems. Recent advances in speech technology allow the use of natural language, eliminating the need for menu structures and offering a tighter coupling between the intention to act and the completion of the action. Modern speech technology may not only make already existing types of interaction safer, but also opens up for new applications, which may enhance safety. One such application is a speech-based hazard reporting system. A small fixed-base simulator study showed that drivers adapt the timing of the hazard reports to the situation at hand, such that an increase in reported workload was avoided.
Keywordsspeech-based interface natural language compensatory behaviour hazard reporting human factors VUI strategic driving behaviour simulated driving IVIS
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 11.Fitch, G.M., Hanowski, R.J.: The risk of a safety-critical event associated with mobile device use as a function of driving task demands. In: Second Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention, Gothenburg, Sweden (2011)Google Scholar
- 16.Lindström, A., Villing, J., Larsson, S., Seward, A., Åberg, N., Holtelius, C.: The effect of cognitive load on disfluencies during in-vehicle spoken dialogue. Interspeech, Brisbane, Australia (2008)Google Scholar
- 17.Wickens, C.D.: Processing resources in attention. In: Parasuraman, R., Davies, D.R. (eds.) Varieties of Attention, pp. 63–102. Academic Press, New York (1984)Google Scholar
- 19.Derrick, W.L.: Dimensions of operator workload. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 30, 95–110 (1988)Google Scholar
- 21.NHTSA: Visual-manual NHTSA driver distraction guidelines for in-vehicle electronic devices. Docket NHTSA-2010-0053 (2012)Google Scholar
- 22.Yager, C.: An evaluation of the effectiveness of voice-to-text programs at reducing incidences of distracted driving. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas 77843-3135, Technical Report SWUTC/13/600451-00011-1 (2013)Google Scholar
- 23.Green, P.A.: Driver interface/HMI standards to minimize driver distraction/ overload. UMTRI, SAE Paper 2008-21-2002 (2008)Google Scholar
- 24.McCracken, J.H., Aldrich, T.B.: Analyses of selected LHX mission functions: Implications for operator workload and system automation goals. Anacapa Sciences Inc., Research note ASI-479-024-84B (1984)Google Scholar
- 25.Kun, A.L., Paek, T., Zeljko, M.: The effect of speech interface accuracy on driving performance. Interspeech, Antwerp, Belgium (2007)Google Scholar
- 26.Green, P.A.: Crashes induced by driver information systems and what can be done to reduce them. In: Conference of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), Warrendale, PA, USA (1999)Google Scholar
- 28.Villing, J., Larsson, S.: Speech, buttons or both? A comparative study of an in-car dialogue system. In: Third International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Salzburg, Austria (2011)Google Scholar
- 30.Byers, J.C., Bittner, A.C., Hill, S.G.: Traditional and raw task load index (TLX) correlations: Are paired comparisons necessary? In: International Industrial Ergonomics and Safety Conference, Cincinnati, Ohio (1989)Google Scholar