Skip to main content
Log in

Evaluation of different interface designs for human-machine interaction in vehicles

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript


In this paper we report on a user study in which we compared three different interaction designs in an in-vehicle infotainment system. Touchpad, free-hand and ordinary button interface designs were compared for usability, user experience and how they affect driving safety in different driving conditions. The study was performed in a high-fidelity driving simulator. Thirty participants were divided into two groups, one with less demanding and one with more demanding driving conditions, with the purpose of evaluating the interaction designs also in different driving environments. Each participant completed a set of tasks on each interface design and evaluated it with the User Experience Questionnaire. The conclusion from this study is that using a buttons-based input design on the steering wheel is the most efficient type of interaction compared to touchpad and free-hand input designs. On the other hand, we found that although newer input designs could be very attractive, their implementation into the vehicles infotainment system should be done wisely and carefully.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. AVSimulation: Innovate. Simulate, Accelerate. In: AVSimulation. Accessed 26 Mar 2019

  2. Burnett G, Lawson G, Millen L, Pickering C (2011) Designing touchpad user-interfaces for vehicles: which tasks are most suitable? Behav Inform Technol 30(3):403–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Čegovnik T, Stojmenova K, Jakus G, Sodnik J (2018) An analysis of the suitability of a low-cost eye tracker for assessing the cognitive load of drivers. Appl Ergon 68:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fanatec Europe. Accessed 25 Mar 2019

  5. Frøkjær E, Hertzum M, Hornbæk K (2000) Measuring usability: are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated?. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, p 345-352

  6. Geiger M, Zobl M, Bengler K, Lang M (2001) Intermodal differences in distraction effects while controlling automotive user interfaces. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Human-Computer Interaction HCI# 2001, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. August 5-10. 2001, p 263-267

  7. Geiser G (1985) Man machine interaction in vehicles. ATZ 87: 74-77

    Google Scholar 

  8. Georgiou O, Biscione V, Harwood A, Griffiths D, Giordano M, Long B, Carter T (2017) Haptic in-vehicle gesture controls. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications Adjunct. ACM, p 233-238

  9. Graichen L, Graichen M, Krems JF (2019) Evaluation of gesture-based in-vehicle interaction: user experience and the potential to reduce driver distraction. Hum Factors 61(5):774–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Harbluk JL, Noy YI, Eizenman M (2002) The impact of cognitive distraction on driver visual behaviour and vehicle control (No. TP# 13889 E).

  11. Harrington K, Large DR, Burnett G, Georgiou O (2018) Exploring the use of mid-air ultrasonic feedback to enhance automotive user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, p. 11-20

  12. Häuslschmid R, von Buelow M, Pfleging B, Butz A (2017) Supporting trust in autonomous driving. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on intelligent user interfaces. ACM, p 319-329

  13. Hess EH, Polt JM (1964) Pupil size in relation to mental activity during simple problem-solving. Science 143(3611):1190–1192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jæger MG, Skov MB, Thomassen NG (2008) You can touch, but you can’t look: interacting with in-vehicle systems. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, p 1139-1148

  15. Jeong H, Liu Y (2019) Effects of non-driving-related-task modality and road geometry on eye movements, lane-keeping performance, and workload while driving. Transport Res F: Traffic Psychol Behav 60:157–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kahneman D, Beatty J (1966) Pupil diameter and load on memory. Science 154(3756):1583–1585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim J, Ryu JH, Han TM (2015) Multimodal interface based on novel HMI UI/UX for in-vehicle infotainment system. Etri Journal 37(4):793–803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kun AL, Brumby DP, Medenica Z (2014) The musical road: interacting with a portable music player in the city and on the highway. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, p 1-7

  19. Lamble D, Kauranen T, Laakso M, Summala H (1999) Cognitive load and detection thresholds in car following situations: safety implications for using mobile (cellular) telephones while driving. Accid Anal Prev 31(6):617–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Large DR, Burnett G, Crundall E, Lawson G, Skrypchuk L (2016) Twist it, touch it, push it, swipe it: evaluating secondary input devices for use with an automotive touchscreen HMI. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, p 161-168

  21. Laugwitz B, Held T, Schrepp M (2008) Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In: Symposium of the Austrian HCI and Usability Engineering Group. Springer, Berlin, p 63-76

  22. Leap Motion. Accessed 26 Mar 2019

  23. Loehmann S, Diwischek L, Schröer B, Bengler K, Lindemann U (2011) The user experience of freehand gestures. In: proceedings of the workshop on user experience in cars in conjunction with 13th international conference on human-computer interaction-INTERACT, p 54–58

  24. Mahlke S, Lemke I, Thüring M (2007) The diversity of non-instrumental qualities in human-technology interaction. Mmi-Interaktiv 13

  25. May KR, Gable TM, Walker BN (2014) A multimodal air gesture interface for in vehicle menu navigation. In: Adjunct Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, p 1-6

  26. Muller C, Weinberg G (2011) Multimodal input in the car, today and tomorrow. IEEE MultiMedia 18(1):98–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. nervtech | simuation technologies. In: nervtech. Accessed 25 Mar 2019

  28. Norberg S, Rahe U (2009) Touchpad as interaction input control for use of in-vehicle infotainment system. In: 1st International Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention (DDI 2009) Chalmers University of TechnologySAFER Vehicle and Traffic Safety CentreINRETS-ARCUEIL, FRANCE

  29. Pfleging B, Schneegass S, Kern D, Schmidt A (2014) Vom Transportmittel zum rollenden Computer–Interaktion im Auto. Informatik-Spektrum 37(5):418–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Riener A, Rossbory M (2011) Natural and intuitive hand gestures: a substitute for traditional vehicle control?. Proceedings of the AutomotiveUI 11: 2

  31. Sabey BE, Taylor H (1980) The known risks we run: the highway. In: Societal risk assessment. Springer, p 43–70

  32. Schrepp M, Hinderks A, Thomaschewski J (2014) Applying the user experience questionnaire (UEQ) in different evaluation scenarios. In: International Conference of Design, User Experience, and Usability. Springer, Cham, p 383-392

  33. Schrepp M, Hinderks A, Thomaschewski J (2017) Construction of a benchmark for the user experience questionnaire (UEQ). IJIMAI 4(4):40–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tobii Pro Glasses 2 wearable eye tracker. Accessed 25 Mar 2019

  35. Trontelj K, Čegovnik T, Dovgan E, Sodnik J (2017) Evaluating safe driving behavior in a driving simulator. In: Zdravković M, Konjović Z, Trajanović M (Eds) ICIST 2017 Proceedings Vol. 1, p 299-302

  36. User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ). Accessed 14 Mar 2019

  37. van Huysduynen HH, Terken J, Meschtscherjakov A, Eggen B, Tscheligi M (2017) Ambient light and its influence on driving experience. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, p 293-301

  38. Vilimek R, Zimmer A (2007) Development and evaluation of a multimodal touchpad for advanced in-vehicle systems. In: International Conference on Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. Springer, Berlin, p 842-851

Download references


This work has been supported by the Slovenian Research Agency within the research program ICT4QoL - Information and Communications Technologies for Quality of Life, grant number P2-0246, and the research project Neurophysiological and Cognitive Profiling of Driving Skills, grant number L2-8178. The authors thank Nervtech for providing the driving simulator software.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomaž Čegovnik.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Čegovnik, T., Stojmenova, K., Tartalja, I. et al. Evaluation of different interface designs for human-machine interaction in vehicles. Multimed Tools Appl 79, 21361–21388 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: