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

ABSTRACT

In this paper, the effects of two user interface menu structures on a mobile device display, list and grid, are compared in a driving simulation with the measures of visual time-sharing efficiency, visual load, driving performance and secondary task performance. Eighteen participants conducted a set of eight Point-of-Interest (POI) search tasks with the grid- or list-style menus on navigation software during simulated driving. Between-subject analysis revealed that the list-style menu structure supports more efficient and systematic, and thus, safer interaction while driving than the grid-style menu, in terms of time-sharing and total glance time. However, significant effects of the menu structures were not found in secondary task performance, driving performance measured as lane excursions, or in the measures of average duration of, or total number of glances at the display. The results also suggest that the fewer items in a view, the more efficient and safer the interaction in terms of time-sharing. The sensitivity of the time-sharing metrics for revealing tactical level driver distraction in driving simulation can be argued as being at a higher level than the sensitivity of metrics related to lane maintenance, visual load or secondary task performance.

References

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 timesharing in highway driving. Optometry Vision Sci. 82, 716--723.

Index Terms

• Computing methodologies

  • Artificial intelligence

    • Philosophical/theoretical foundations of artificial intelligence

      • Cognitive science

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)