Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 815–823 | Cite as

Browsing the information highway while driving: three in-vehicle touch screen scrolling methods and driver distraction

Original Article

Abstract

Distraction effects of three alternative touch screen scrolling methods for searching music tracks on a mobile device were studied in a driving simulation experiment with 24 participants. Page-by-page scrolling methods with Buttons or Swipe that better facilitate resumption of visual search following interruptions were expected to lead to more consistent in-vehicle glance durations and thus on less severe distraction effects than Kinetic scrolling. As predicted, Kinetic scrolling induced decreased visual sampling efficiency and increased visual load compared with Swipe, increased experienced workload compared with both Buttons and Swipe, as well as decreased lane-keeping accuracy compared with baseline. However, Buttons did not significantly excel Kinetic with any metric but on subjective ratings. Based on the results, we do not recommend the use of kinetic scrolling with in-vehicle touch screen displays in the manner used in the experiment. Instead, page-by-page swiping seems to suit significantly better for in-vehicle displays due to its systematic nature and low levels of pointing accuracy required for scrolling the pages.

Keywords

Driver distraction In-vehicle information system Information search Touch screen Scrolling method Visual sampling Visual load Driving performance 

References

  1. 1.
    Chisholm SL, Caird JF, Lockhart J, Fern L, Teteris E (2007) Driving performance while engaged in MP-3 player interaction: effects of practice and task difficulty on PRT and eye movements. In Proceedings of the fourth international driving symposium on human factors in driver assessment, training and vehicle design. University of Iowa Public Policy Center, Iowa City, pp 238–245Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Collet C, Guillot A, Petit C (2010) Phoning while driving I: a review of epidemiological, psychological, behavioural and physiological studies. Ergonomics 53(2010):589–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dingus TA, Hulse MC, Mollenhauer MA, Fleischman RN, McGehee DV, Manakkal N (1997) Effects of age, system experience, and navigation technique on driving with an advanced traveler information system. Hum Factors 39:177–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fitts PM, Peterson JR (1964) Information capacity of discrete motor responses. J Exp Psychol 67(2):103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    GM Press Release (2011) Cadillac CUE: intuitive and connected driving in 2012—integrates interior design with industry-first control, command technologies. Retrieved from: http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2011/Oct/1012cadillac
  6. 6.
    Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX: results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N (eds) Human mental workload. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 139–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horrey WJ, Wickens CD (2007) In-vehicle glance duration: distributions, tails, and model of crash risk. Transp Res Rec 2018:22–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klauer SG, Dingus TA, Neale VL, Sudweeks JD, Ramsey DJ (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). U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kujala T, Saariluoma P (2011) Effects of menu structure and touch screen scrolling method on the variability of in-vehicle glance durations during in-vehicle visual search tasks. Ergonomics 54(8):716–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee JD, Regan MA, Young KL (2008) What drives distraction? Distraction as a breakdown of multilevel control. In: Regan MA, Lee JD, Young KL (eds) Driver distraction: theory, effects, and mitigation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee JD, Young KL, Regan MA (2008) Defining driver distraction. In: Regan MA, Lee JD, Young KL (eds) Driver distraction: theory, effects, and mitigation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pitts MJ, Burnett G, Skrypchuk L, Wellings T, Attridge A, Williams MA (2012) Visual–haptic feedback interaction in automotive touchscreens. Displays 33:7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ratwani RJ, Andrews AE, McCurry M, Trafton JG, Peterson MS (2007). Using peripheral processing and spatial memory to facilitate task resumption. In: Human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting proceedings, vol 51, pp 244–248Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salvucci DD (2010). On reconstruction of task context after interruption. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: CHI 2010. ACM Press, New York, pp 89–92Google Scholar
  15. 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. Society of Automotive Engineers, WarrendaleGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang Y, Mehler B, Reimer B, Lammers V, D’Ambrosio LA, Coughlin JF (2010) The validity of driving simulation for assessing differences between in-vehicle informational interfaces: a comparison with field testing. Ergonomics 53:404–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wierwille WW (1993) An initial model of visual sampling of in-car displays and controls. In: Gale AG, Brown ID, Haslegrave CM, Kruysse HW, Taylor SP (eds) Vision in vehicles IV. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V, Amsterdam, pp 271–279Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wierwille WW, Tijerina L (1998) Modeling the relationship between driver in-vehicle visual demands and accident occurrence. In: Gale AG (ed) Vision in vehicles VI. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 233–243Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wikman AS, Nieminen T, Summala H (1998) Driving experience and time-sharing during in-car tasks on roads of different width. Ergonomics 41:358–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wikman AS, Summala H (2005) Aging and time-sharing in highway driving. Optom Vis Sci 82:716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, Agora CenterUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations