In-car indirect communication. Creating an interface for the expression of emotions between the driver and the passengers

  • Nikolaos Fragkiadakis
  • SeungHee Lee
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 739)


During an event, the Kansei-Sensation of individuals vary. For example, while driving, the experience of the driver and the passengers can be different. The driver can be overexcited because enjoys a fast ride, but the passengers can be scared or anxious. The passengers have a tendency to avoid expressing discomfort or negative emotions to the driver about his driving behavior or performance. The problem that results from this is that the driver is not aware of the emotional condition of the passengers and this worsens the experience. This research solves this problem by creating an interface that helps the passengers to express their emotions to the driver in an indirect way. To achieve that, a fully functional prototype was created, and the interaction between the passengers and the driver was tested in a driving simulator during a driving task. The results of the use of the sensor, the speed and the heart rate of the passenger were measured. Since the results showed that 8 out of 10 couples used the indirect interface instead of any other kind of communication concluded that the interface helps the passengers to express their emotions easier. In addition, since the driving speed reduction had a significant difference concluded that the drivers took into consideration the interface and adjust their driving behavior accordingly.


Kansei Science  User Experience  Indirect Communication Vehicle Interface Physiological Measurements 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Nagamachi, Mitsuo. “Kansei engineering as a powerful consumer-oriented technology for product development.” Applied ergonomics 33.3 (2002): 289-294.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nagamachi, Mitsuo. “Perspectives and the new trend of Kansei/affective engineering.” The TQM Journal 20.4 (2008): 290-298.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nicholson, Sterling Christpher, et al. “Automotive entertainment system for rear seat passengers.” U.S. Patent No. 6,330,337. 11 Dec. 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crundall, David, et al. “Regulating conversation during driving: a problem for mobile telephones?.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 8.3 (2005): 197-211.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sarter, Nadine B. “Multiple-resource theory as a basis for multimodal interface design: Success stories, qualifications, and research needs.” Attention: From theory to practice (2007): 187-195.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horberry, Tim, et al. “Driver distraction: The effects of concurrent in-vehicle tasks, road environment complexity and age on driving performance.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 38.1 (2006): 185-191.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klauer, Sheila G., et al. “Distracted driving and risk of road crashes among novice and experienced drivers.” New England journal of medicine 370.1 (2014): 54-59.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Becic, Ensar, et al. “Driving impairs talking.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17.1 (2010): 15-21.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Briem, Valdimar, and Leif R. Hedman. “Behavioural effects of mobile telephone use during simulated driving.” Ergonomics 38.12 (1995): 2536-2562.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Broadbent, D., and M. H. P. Broadbent. “Human attention: the exclusion of distracting information as a function of real and apparent separation of relevant and irrelevant events.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 242.1303 (1990): 11-16.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McKanna, James. “Understanding divided attention and its relation to aging and cognition through unobtrusive continuous measures.” (2013).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TsukubaIbarakiJapan

Personalised recommendations