This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Can You Still Look Up? Remote Rotary Controller vs. Touchscreen
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Published March 28, 2017 by SAE International in United States
This content contains downloadable datasetsAnnotation ability available
The popularity of new Human-Machine-Interfaces (HMIs) comes with growing concerns for driver distraction. In part, this concern stems from a rising challenge to design systems that can make functions accessible to drivers while maintaining drivers’ ability to cope with the complex driving task. Therefore, engineers need assessment methods which can evaluate how well a user interface achieves the dual-goal of making secondary tasks accessible, while allowing safe driving. Most prior methods have emphasized measuring off-road glances during HMI use. An alternative to this is to consider both on-road and off-road glances, as done in Kircher and Ahlstrom’s AttenD algorithm . In this study, we compared two types of prevalent visual-manual user interfaces based on AttenD. The two HMIs of interest were a touchscreen-based interface (already in production) and a remote-rotary-controller-based interface (a high-fidelity prototype). Five in-vehicle tasks were evaluated, including a continuous-control task, a shortcut task, a menu-navigation task, a list-operation task and a function-switch task. Sixteen participants’ glance behavior was manually coded to apply AttenD. Results suggested that with a higher-positioned display and haptic feedback, the rotary-controller helped drivers maintain attention to the roadway better than the touchscreen-based interface for simple continuous control and shortcut tasks. For the more complex tasks, the results were mixed with interesting insights. Additionally, the AttenD also revealed significant individual differences in attention management strategy. In summary, AttenD-like algorithms not only can compare different HMIs, but also can reveal individual attention allocation strategies.
CitationZhang, Y., Angell, L., Pala, S., Hara, T. et al., "Can You Still Look Up? Remote Rotary Controller vs. Touchscreen," SAE Technical Paper 2017-01-1386, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-1386.
Data Sets - Support Documents
|Unnamed Dataset 1|
|Unnamed Dataset 2|
- Kircher , K , and Ahlström , C. Issues Related to the Driver Distraction Detection Algorithm AttenD In the 7th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design Gothenburg, Sweden 2009
- Boyadjis , Mark C. IHS Human Machine Interface Trends: Technology Assessment & Design Disruption in Vehicle User Experience (UX) 2016 https://technology.ihs.com/576052/auto-tech-report-hmi-trends-2016
- Stanton , N. , Harvey , C. , Plant , K. , and Bolton , L. To twist, roll, stroke or poke? A study of input devices for menu navigation in the cockpit Ergonomics 56 4 590 611 2013
- Harvey , C. Touch Screen vs. Rotary Controller: How Usable are the Two Major In-Vehicle Information System Technologies? Adjunct Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications November 11–12, 2010 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Visual-manual NHTSA driver distraction guidelines for in-vehicle electronic devices 2013 http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/distracted_driving/pdf/distracted_guidelines-FR_04232013.pdf
- Driver Focus - Telematics working group of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) Statement of principles, criteria and verification procedures on driver interactions with advanced in- vehicle information and communication systems 2006 http://www.umich.edu/~driving/safety/guidelines.html
- Ahlstrom , Christer , Kircher Katja , and Kircher Albert A gaze-based driver distraction warning system and its effect on visual behavior IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 14 2 965 973 2013
- Road vehicles — Transport information and control systems — Detection-response task (DRT) for assessing attentional effects of cognitive load in driving 2016
- Lee , J. , Sawyer , B. , Mehler , B. , Angell , L. , Linking the Detection Response Task and the AttenD Buffer through Assessing Human-Machine Interface Workload Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 96th Annual Meeting Washington, D.C. 2017
- Seppelt , B.D. , Seaman , S. , Lee , J. , Angell , L. , Mehler , B. , & Reimer , B. Glass half-full: Differentiating crash from near-crash in the 100-car data using on-road glance metrics
- ISO Road vehicles — Measurement of driver visual behaviour with respect to transport information and control systems — Part 1: Definitions and parameters International Organization for Standardization ISO 15007 1 2002
- ISO Road vehicles -- Measurement of driver visual behaviour with respect to transport information and control systems -- Part 2: Equipment and procedure International Organization for Standardization ISO 15007 2 2001