Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Speech versus visual-manual interfaces in trucks: effects on driver distraction, user acceptance, and perceived efficiency
Linköping University, Department of Computer and Information Science.
2016 (English)Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (Two Years)), 20 credits / 30 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

Truck drivers often have a tight time schedule and therefore need to carry out several in-vehicle tasks while driving, such as making phone calls, writing down information and navigating to new places. Performing these tasks using a visual-manual interface can impose visual distraction which has been shown to lead to safety-critical events on the roads. Instead of using a visual-manual interface, a speech interface could be a safer alternative if designed properly. However, the cognitive load demanded by speech interfaces and the connection between cognitive load and driving behaviour is not fully understood. In this study, a speech interface and its visual-manual counterpart were evaluated and compared in terms of visual distraction, cognitive load and user efficiency and perceived acceptance. Eye tracking was used to measure visual distraction. The measurements used for cognitive load were the Tactile Detection Response task (TDRT) and the Driving Activity Load Index (DALI). Perceived acceptance and efficiency were measured using the System Usability Scale (SUS), the Subjective Assessment of Speech Systems (SASSI) and semi-structured interviews.

The conclusions were that (1) the speech interface was less visually distracting than the visual-manual counterpart, (2) the speech interface was less cognitively demanding than the visual-manual interface, especially in the navigation task, (3) the speech interface was safer to use while driving compared to the visual-manual interface and (4) the speech interface had higher user acceptance and perceived efficiency than the visual-manual interface. Further research should investigate the connection between cognitive load and driving behaviour, such as lane keeping and brake response time, by employing a variety of speech tasks with various complexity as well as including speech interfaces entirely free from visual demand. The focus should be on the difference between baseline driving and speech interaction, as opposed to speech interaction and visual-manual interaction.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. , 61 p.
National Category
Interaction Technologies
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-135490ISRN: LIU-IDA/KOGVET-A–17/001–SEOAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-135490DiVA: diva2:1082143
External cooperation
Volvo Trucks
Subject / course
Cognitive science
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2017-03-17 Created: 2017-03-15 Last updated: 2017-03-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(396 kB)21 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 396 kBChecksum SHA-512
7cc0759c6ce76879718789b45ab6980436a889a67f1ac85c66ea367f9aae8375c921c08039733d5228ffddef3524da2f77373dc0c7e43d3b2643b08b5879ad70
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Lindvall, Sofia
By organisation
Department of Computer and Information Science
Interaction Technologies

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 21 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Total: 45 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf