Choosing a Dialogue System’s Modality in Order to Minimize User’s Workload

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11096)


The communication during human-machine interaction often happens only as a secondary task that distract the user’s main focus on a primary task. In our study, the primary task was driving a vehicle and the secondary task was an interaction with a dialogue system on a tablet device using touch and speech. In this paper we present the design and the analysis of a study that can be used to create an optimal strategy for a dialogue manager that takes into consideration several metrics. These include the type of the information we require from the user, the expected cognitive load on the user, the expected duration of a user’s response and the expected error rate.


Dialogue system Choice of modality Lane change test 



This work was supported by the European Regional Development Fund under the project Robotics for Industry 4.0 (reg. no. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/15_003/0000470).


  1. 1.
    Benedetto, S., Pedrotti, M., Minin, L., Baccino, T., Re, A., Montanari, R.: Driver workload and eye blink duration. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 14(3), 199–208 (2011). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Curin, J., et al.: Dictating and editing short texts while driving. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications - AutomotiveUI 2011 p. 13 (2011).
  3. 3.
    He, J., et al.: Texting while driving: is speech-based text entry less risky than handheld text entry? Accid. Anal. Prev. 72, 287–295 (2014). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Road vehicles – Ergonomic aspects of transport information and control systems – Simulated lane change test to assess in-vehicle secondary task demand. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH, September 2010Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kousidis, S., Kennington, C., Baumann, T., Buschmeier, H., Kopp, S., Schlangen, D.: A multimodal in-car dialogue system that tracks the driver’s attention. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction - ICMI 2014, pp. 26–33 (2014).
  6. 6.
    Louveton, N., McCall, R., Koenig, V., Avanesov, T., Engel, T.: Driving while using a smartphone-based mobility application: evaluating the impact of three multi-choice user interfaces on visual-manual distraction. Appl. Ergon. 54, 196–204 (2016). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oviatt, S., Coulston, R., Lunsford, R.: When do we interact multimodally? Cognitive load and multimodal communication patterns. In: International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, pp. 129–136 (2004).
  8. 8.
    Pitts, M.J., Skrypchuk, L., Wellings, T., Attridge, A., Williams, M.A.: Evaluating user response to in-car haptic feedback touchscreens using the lane change test. Adv. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2012 (2012).
  9. 9.
    Pražák, A., Psutka, J.V., Hoidekr, J., Kanis, J., Müller, L., Psutka, J.: Automatic online subtitling of the Czech parliament meetings. In: Sojka, P., Kopeček, I., Pala, K. (eds.) TSD 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4188, pp. 501–508. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Silvervarg, A., et al.: Perceived usability and cognitive demand of secondary tasks in spoken versus visual-manual automotive interaction. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, INTERSPEECH, pp. 1171–1175 (2016).
  11. 11.
    Tihelka, D., Stanislav, P.: ARTIC for assistive technologies: transformation to resource-limited hardware. In: WCECS 2011, vol. I, pp. 581–584 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NTIS - New Technologies for Information Society, Faculty of Applied SciencesUniversity of West BohemiaPilsenCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations