Driving Performance During 511 Information Retrieval: Cell Phone 2

As a logical and necessary extension of previous research (Rakauskas, et al., 2005), this study aims to assess the risk of cell phone use for traveler information applications; namely while using Minnesota’s 511 interactive voice response (IVR) menu. First, detailed usage, utility, and usability evaluations of the MN511 were conducted. The goal of this design was to help harmonize the transfer of knowledge between access methods while also easing implementation concerns for the MN511 developers. Next, a simulated driving experiment was conducted with the goal of seeing if using an IVR menu leads to more risky driving behavior compared to driving while not accessing a menu. It also allowed us to see if changing the MN511 menu might affect driver performance. While using both phone menus, drivers seemed to compensate for the additional mental workload by delaying their reactions until they felt comfortable taking action. There were no differences between the two menu types for the majority of driving performance measures. This study addresses issues with the 511 IVR menus that were identified during this study and presents recommendations for future development.

[1]  Louis Tijerina,et al.  Reply to Comments by Hancock and Scallen, Moray, and Smiley on "Using Cellular Telephones in Vehicles: Safe or Unsafe?" , 1999 .

[2]  Amy L. Schwartz,et al.  Increasing the Usability of Interactive Voice Response Systems: Research and Guidelines for Phone-Based Interfaces , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[3]  Barbara Freeman,et al.  A comparative study of speech in the call center: natural language call routing vs. touch-tone menus , 2002, CHI.

[4]  S J Westerman,et al.  Mobile (cellular) phone use and driving: a critical review of research methodology , 2001, Ergonomics.

[5]  Chris Baber,et al.  Designing habitable dialogues for speech-based interaction with computers , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[6]  Joseph Sharit,et al.  Effects of Age, Speech Rate, and Environmental Support in Using Telephone Voice Menu Systems , 2003, Hum. Factors.

[7]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Examining the Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Driving Using Meta-Analytic Techniques , 2006, Hum. Factors.

[8]  A. Hamish Jamson,et al.  Speech-Based E-Mail and Driver Behavior: Effects of an In-Vehicle Message System Interface , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[9]  Thomas A. Ranney,et al.  Effects of Voice Technology on Test Track Driving Performance: Implications for Driver Distraction , 2005, Hum. Factors.

[10]  Mark Howell,et al.  The impact of interface metaphor and context of use on the usability of a speech-based mobile city guide service , 2005, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[11]  Michael J Kelly,et al.  Driver Performance While Using A Cellular Telephone Interface To A Traveler Information System , 2005 .

[12]  Jonathon M. Vivoda,et al.  Driver Hand-Held Cellular Phone Use in Minnesota, August 2006 , 2006 .

[13]  Chris Bond,et al.  Your Call is Important to Us … Please Hold , 1999 .

[14]  Dick de Waard,et al.  A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics , 1997 .

[15]  George Engelbeck,et al.  Designing Voice Menu Applications for Telephones , 1997 .

[16]  Peter A. Hancock,et al.  THE DRIVING QUESTION , 1999 .

[17]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  Hierarchical Menu Design: Breadth, Depth, and Task Complexity , 1996 .

[18]  Robert Graham,et al.  The Format and Presentation of Collision Warnings , 1997 .