Conventional versus Moving-Map Navigation Methods

Thirty-eight male and female participants, aged 21 to 50 years, drove to three unfamiliar destinations using three different methods of navigation: Nav, an in-vehicle moving-map and route guidance navigation system; Free, the free use of paper maps or computer printouts, but without access to the navigation system; and Way, which was the same as Free, but with waypoints also provided. Each participant had a minimum of 6 weeks of prior experience using in-vehicle navigation technology. The routes were each designed to sample urban, rural, and highway road categories. Methods were counterbalanced across route and presentation order. An onboard experimenter administered the study. Data were gathered to assess navigational efficiency, workload, and safety-related driving errors. A peripheral detection task was included as a loading task to measure workload and spare attentional capacity objectively; the rating scale of mental effort was included as a subjective measure of mental effort. Use of the navigation system produced better results than either of the two conventional methods in terms of several key metrics related to driver workload, driving errors, and navigational efficiency. These results support the notion that an onboard, moving-map navigation system incorporating route guidance can play a meaningful role in enhancing navigational efficiency and safety for experienced navigation system users. Future research is recommended to examine eye glance and other driver behaviors further, such as lane excursions and headway maintenance, to gain additional insight into the effect of method of navigation on the primary driving task.