Advertisement

International Journal of Speech Technology

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 25–33 | Cite as

Speech Recognition and In-Vehicle Telematics Devices: Potential Reductions in Driver Distraction

  • Marvin C. McCallum
  • John L. Campbell
  • Joel B. Richman
  • James L. Brown
  • Emily Wiese
Article

Abstract

Speech Recognition is frequently cited as a potential remedy to distraction resulting from drivers' operation of in-vehicle devices. This position typically assumes that the introduction of speech recognition will result in reduced cognitive workload and improved driving performance. Past research neither fully supports nor fully discounts this assumption. However, it is difficult to compare many of these studies, due to differences in device operation tasks, the pacing of those tasks, speech recognition system performance, and system interface designs. In an effort to directly address the effect of voice recognition on driver distraction, the present authors developed a capability to manipulate the performance characteristics of a speech recognition system through a Wizard of Oz speech recognition system and installed this system in a simulated driving environment. The sensitivity of the simulated driving environment and speech recognition accuracy manipulation were evaluated in an initial study comparing driver cognitive workload and driving performance during self-paced simulated operation of a personal digital assistant (PDA) during no PDA use, manual control of the PDA, and speech control of the PDA. In the Speech PDA condition, speech recognition accuracy was varied between drivers. Analysis of drivers' emergency braking response times and rated cognitive workload revealed significantly lower cognitive demand and better performance in the No PDA condition when compared to the Manual PDA condition. The Speech PDA condition resulted in response times and rated cognitive workload levels that were between the No PDA and Manual PDA conditions, but not significantly different from either of these conditions. Further analysis of emergency braking performance revealed a non-significant trend towards better performance in conjunction with higher speech recognition accuracy levels. The potential for reducing driver distraction through the careful development and evaluation of speech recognition systems is discussed.

vehicle telematics driver distraction driver workload 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brookhuis, K.A., de Vries, G., and deWaard, D. (1991). The effects of mobile telephoning on driving performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 23(4):309–316.Google Scholar
  2. Brouwer, W., Waterink, W., Van Wolffelaar, P., and Rothengatter, T. (1991). Divided attention in experienced young and older drivers: Lane tracking and visual analysis in a dynamic driving simulator. Human Factors, 33(5):573–582.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, J.L., Carney, C., and Kantowitz, B.H. (1997). Human Factors Design Guidelines for Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) and Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO) (Technical Report FHWA-RD-98-057). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.Google Scholar
  4. Curry, D.G. (2001). In-vehicle cell phones: Fatal distraction-yes or no? Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting, pp. 562-566.Google Scholar
  5. Eby, D.W., Trombley, D.A., Molnar, L.J., and Shope, J.T. (1998). The Assessment of Older Drivers' Capabilities: A Review of the Literature. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.Google Scholar
  6. Gellatly, A.W. and Dingus, T.A. (1998). Speech recognition and automotive applications: Using speech to perform in-vehicle tasks. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, pp. 1247-1251.Google Scholar
  7. Green, P. (2003). Motor vehicle driver interfaces. In J.A. Jacko and A. Sears (Eds.), The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Greenberg, J., Tijerina, L., Curry, R., Artz, B., Cathey, L., Grant, P., Kochhar, D., Koxak, K., and Blommer, M. (2003). Evaluation of driver distraction using an event detection paradigm (CD-ROM). Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. Google Scholar
  9. Hart, S.G. and Staveland, L.E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P.A. Hancock and N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human Mental Workload. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  10. Hartley, A.A. (1992). Attention. In F.I.M. Craik and T.A. Salthouse, (Eds.), The Handbook of Aging and Cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, pp. 3–49.Google Scholar
  11. Kames, A.J. (1978). A study of the effects of mobile telephone use and control unit design on driving performance. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, VT-27(4):282–287.Google Scholar
  12. Lee, J.D., Caven, B., Haake, S., and Brown, T.L. (2001). Speech-based interaction with in-vehicle computers: The effect of speechbased e-mail on driver's attention to the roadway. Human Factors, 43:631–640.Google Scholar
  13. McKnight, A.J. and McKnight, A.S. (1993). The effect of cellular phone use upon driver attention. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 25(3):259–265Google Scholar
  14. McMillan, G.R. and Eggleston, R.G. (1997). Nonconventional controls. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Recarte, M.A. and Nunes, L.M. (2000). Effects of verbal and spatialimagery tasks on eye fixations while driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6:31–43.Google Scholar
  16. Redelmeier, D.A. and Tibshirani, R.J. (1997). Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. New England Journal of Medicine, 336:453–458.Google Scholar
  17. Richard, C.M., Wright, R.D., Ee, C., Prime, S.L., Shimizu, Y., and Vavrik, J. (2002). Effect of a concurrent auditory task on visual search performance in a driving-related image-flicker task. Human Factors, 44(1):108–119.Google Scholar
  18. Stein, A.C., Parseghian, Z., and Allen, R.W. (1987). A simulator study of the safety implications of cellular mobile phone use (Paper No. 405). Hawthorne, CA: Systems Technology, Inc.Google Scholar
  19. Tijerina, L., Johnston, S., Parmer, E., and Winterbottom, M.D. (2000). Driver Distraction with Route Guidance Systems (DOT HS 809-069). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.Google Scholar
  20. Violanti, J.M. (1998). Cellular phones and fatal traffic collisions. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30:519–524.Google Scholar
  21. Wargnier, J. (May, 2002). Considerations for robust speech recognition and sound quality for automotive handsfree kits. 21st Annual Conference of the Applied Voice Input/Output Society (AVIOS), pp. 339-348.Google Scholar
  22. Wickens, C.D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman and D.R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of Attention. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Zwahlen, H.T., Adams, C.C., Jr., and Schwartz, P.J. (1988). Safety aspects of cellular telephones in automobiles (Paper No. 88058). Proceedings of the ISATA Conference, Florence, Italy.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marvin C. McCallum
    • 1
  • John L. Campbell
    • 1
  • Joel B. Richman
    • 1
  • James L. Brown
    • 1
  • Emily Wiese
    • 1
  1. 1.Battelle Human Factors Transportation CenterSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations