Visual Distraction Effects of In-Car Text Entry Methods: Comparing Keyboard, Handwriting and Voice Recognition

T. Kujala, Hilkka Grahn
{"title":"Visual Distraction Effects of In-Car Text Entry Methods: Comparing Keyboard, Handwriting and Voice Recognition","authors":"T. Kujala, Hilkka Grahn","doi":"10.1145/3122986.3122987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Three text entry methods were compared in a driving simulator study with 17 participants. Ninety-seven drivers' occlusion distance (OD) data mapped on the test routes was used as a baseline to evaluate the methods' visual distraction potential. Only the voice recognition-based text entry tasks passed the set verification criteria. Handwriting tasks were experienced as the most demanding and the voice recognition tasks as the least demanding. An individual in-car glance length preference was found, but against expectations, drivers' ODs did not correlate with in-car glance lengths or visual short-term memory capacity. The handwriting method was further studied with 24 participants with instructions and practice on writing eyes-on-road. The practice did not affect the test results. The findings suggest that handwriting could be visually less demanding than touch screen typing but the reliability of character recognition should be improved or the driver well-experienced with the method to minimize its distraction potential.","PeriodicalId":143620,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3122986.3122987","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

Three text entry methods were compared in a driving simulator study with 17 participants. Ninety-seven drivers' occlusion distance (OD) data mapped on the test routes was used as a baseline to evaluate the methods' visual distraction potential. Only the voice recognition-based text entry tasks passed the set verification criteria. Handwriting tasks were experienced as the most demanding and the voice recognition tasks as the least demanding. An individual in-car glance length preference was found, but against expectations, drivers' ODs did not correlate with in-car glance lengths or visual short-term memory capacity. The handwriting method was further studied with 24 participants with instructions and practice on writing eyes-on-road. The practice did not affect the test results. The findings suggest that handwriting could be visually less demanding than touch screen typing but the reliability of character recognition should be improved or the driver well-experienced with the method to minimize its distraction potential.
车内文字输入方式的视觉干扰效果:比较键盘、手写和语音识别
在驾驶模拟器研究中,对17名参与者进行了三种文本输入方法的比较。以97名驾驶员在测试路线上绘制的遮挡距离(OD)数据为基线,评价该方法的视觉分散潜力。只有基于语音识别的文本输入任务通过设置的验证标准。手写任务被认为是要求最高的,而语音识别任务要求最低。研究发现,司机对车内扫视的时间长短有个人偏好,但与预期相反,司机的od与车内扫视的时间长短或视觉短期记忆能力没有关联。在24名参与者的指导和练习下,进一步研究了书写方法。这种做法对测试结果没有影响。研究结果表明,手写对视觉的要求可能比触摸屏打字要低,但字符识别的可靠性应该得到提高,或者司机对这种方法有充分的经验,以尽量减少其分散注意力的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信