Efficiency of visual time-sharing behavior - The effects of menu structure on POI search tasks while driving

Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, AutomotiveUI 2009

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 63-70

  Kujala, Tuomo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

Author keywords

Displays; Driver distraction; Driving performance; Levels of control; Menu structures; Strategies; Tactics; Time sharing; Visual interaction; Visual load; Workload

Indexed keywords

DISPLAYS; DRIVER DISTRACTION; DRIVING PERFORMANCE; LEVELS OF CONTROL; MENU STRUCTURES; STRATEGIES; TACTICS; TIME-SHARING; VISUAL INTERACTION; VISUAL LOAD; WORKLOAD;

INTERFERENCE SUPPRESSION; MOBILE DEVICES; USER INTERFACES;

AUTOMOBILE DRIVERS;

EID: 70350644976     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1620509.1620522     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (22)

1. Commission of the European Communities 2006. Recommendation on safe and efficient in-vehicle information and communication systems: Update of the European statement of principles on human machine interface (Report C(2006) 7125 final). Brussels, BEL: Commission of the European Communities.
2. Hoffman, J. D., Lee, J. D., McGehee, D. V., Macias, M., and Gellatly, A. W. 2005. Visual sampling of in-vehicle text messages: Effects of number of lines, page presentation, and message control. Transport. Res. Rec. 1937, 22-30.
3. Horrey, W. J. and Wickens, C. D. 2006. Examining the impact of cell phone conversations on driving using meta-analytic techniques. Hum.Factors 48, 196-205.
4. Horrey, W. J. and Wickens, C. D. 2007. In-vehicle glance duration: Distributions, tails, and model of crash risk. Transport. Res. Rec. 2018, 22-28.
5. International Organization for Standardization 2007. ISO 16673 Road vehicles-ergonomic aspects of transport information and control systems-Occlusion method to assess visual demand due to the use of in-vehicle systems. Geneva, CH: International Standards Organization.
6. Jamson, A. H., Westerman, S. J., Hockey, G. R. J., and Carsten, O. M. J. 2004. Speech-based e-mail and driver behavior: Effects of an in-vehicle message system interface. Hum. Factors 46, 625-639.
7. Just, M. A., Keller, T. A., and Cynkar, J. 2008. A decrease in brain activation associated with driving when listening to someone speak. Brain Res. 1205, 70-80.
8. Klauer, S. G., Dingus, T. A., Neale, V. L., Sudweeks, J. D., and Ramsey, D. J. 2006. The impact of driver inattention on near-crash/crash risk: An analysis using the 100-car naturalistic driving study data (DOT HS Rep. 810 594). Washington DC: U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
9. Lee, J. D., Regan, M. A., and Young, K. L. 2008. What drives distraction? Distraction as a breakdown of multilevel control. In Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation. M.A. Regan, J.D. Lee, and K.L. Young, Eds. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 41-56.
10. Lee, J. D., Young, K. L., and Regan, M. A. 2008. Defining driver distraction. In Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation. M.A. Regan, J.D. Lee, and K.L. Young, Eds. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 31-40.
11. Michon, J. A. 1985. A critical view of driver behavior models: What do we know, what should we do? In Human Behavior and Traffic Safety. L. Evans and R. C. Schwing, Eds. Plenum Press, New York, NY, 485-520.
12. Regan, M.A., Lee, J.D., and Young, K.L. 2008. Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects, and Mitigation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
13. Sakai, K. 2008. Task set and prefrontal cortex. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 31, 219-245.
14. Sheridan, T. B. 2004. Driver distraction from a control theoretic perspective. Hum. Factors 46, 587-599.
15. Society of Automotive Engineers 2000. SAE J2396 Surface vehicle recommended practice, definitions and experimental measures related to the specification of driver visual behavior using video based techniques. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
16. Society of Automotive Engineers 2004. Navigation and route guidance function accessibility while driving, SAE recommended practice J2364. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
17. Sodnik, J., Dicke, C., Tomazic, S., and Billinghurst, M. 2008. A user study of auditory versus visual interfaces for use while driving. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. St. 66, 318-332.
18. Victor, T. W., Harbluk, J. L., and Engström, J. A. 2005. Sensitivity of eye-movement measures to in-vehicle task difficulty. Transport. Res. F-Traf. 8, 167-190.
19. Wickens, C.D. 2002. Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 3 (2), 159-177.
20. Wierwille, W. W. 1993. An initial model of visual sampling of in-car displays and controls. In Vision in Vehicles IV, A.G. Gale, I. D. Brown, C. M. Haslegrave, H. W. Kruysse, and S. P. Taylor, Eds. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, NL, 271-279.
21. Wikman, A.S., Nieminen, T. and Summala, H. 1998. Driving experience and time-sharing during in-car tasks on roads of different width. Ergonomics 41 (3), 358-372.
22. Wikman, A. S. and Summala, H. 2005. Aging and time-sharing in highway driving. Optometry Vision Sci. 82, 716-723.