The impact of interface modality on police officers' visual behaviour when using an in-vehicle system

Background Standard operating procedures state that police officers should not drive while interacting with their mobile data terminal (MDT) which provides in-vehicle information essential to police work. Such interactions do however occur in practice and represent a potential source of driver distraction. The MDT comprises visual output with manual input via touch screen and keyboard. This study investigated the potential for alternative input and output methods to mitigate driver distraction with specific focus on eye movements. Method Nineteen experienced drivers of police vehicles (one female) from the NSW Police Force completed four simulated urban drives. Three drives included a concurrent secondary task: imitation licence plate search using an emulated MDT. Three different interface methods were examined: Visual-Manual, Visual-Voice, and Audio-Voice (“Visual” and “Audio” = output modality; “Manual” and “Voice” = input modality). During each drive, eye movements were recorded using FaceLAB™ (Seeing Machines Ltd, Canberra, ACT). Gaze direction and glances on the MDT were assessed. Results The Visual-Voice and Visual-Manual interfaces resulted in a significantly greater number of glances towards the MDT than Audio-Voice or Baseline. The Visual-Manual and Visual-Voice interfaces resulted in significantly more glances to the display than Audio-Voice or Baseline. For longer duration glances (>2s and 1-2s) the Visual-Manual interface resulted in significantly more fixations than Baseline or Audio-Voice. The short duration glances (<1s) were significantly greater for both Visual-Voice and Visual-Manual compared with Baseline and Audio-Voice. There were no significant differences between Baseline and Audio-Voice. Conclusion An Audio-Voice interface has the greatest potential to decrease visual distraction to police drivers. However, it is acknowledged that an audio output may have limitations for information presentation compared with visual output. The Visual-Voice interface offers an environment where the capacity to present information is sustained, whilst distraction to the driver is reduced (compared to Visual-Manual) by enabling adaptation of fixation behaviour.

[1]  S. Zeger,et al.  Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models , 1986 .

[2]  Bryan Reimer,et al.  Glance analysis of driver eye movements to evaluate distraction , 2002, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[3]  Dean P Chiang,et al.  On the highway measures of driver glance behavior with an example automobile navigation system. , 2004, Applied ergonomics.

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

[5]  Andrew L. Kun,et al.  Design and Evaluation of a Ubiquitous Computing Application for Law Enforcement † , 2005 .

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

[7]  Johan Engström,et al.  Sensitivity of eye-movement measures to in-vehicle task difficulty , 2005 .

[8]  Paul Hampton,et al.  A contextual study of police car telematics: the future of in-car information systems , 2005, Ergonomics.

[9]  Aaron Marcus,et al.  Almost dead on arrival: a case study of non-user-centered design for a police emergency-response system , 2006, INTR.

[10]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data , 2006 .

[11]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  In-Vehicle Glance Duration , 2007 .

[12]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  The Relative Risks of Secondary Task Induced Driver Distraction , 2008 .

[13]  Mark Billinghurst,et al.  A user study of auditory versus visual interfaces for use while driving , 2008, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[14]  Paul Green,et al.  Driver Interface/HMI Standards to Minimize Driver Distraction/Overload , 2008 .

[15]  Michael G. Lenné,et al.  Development and validation of a naturalistic driver distraction evaluation tool , 2009 .

[16]  Mark Vollrath,et al.  Accident Analysis and Prevention , 2009 .

[17]  John D. Lee,et al.  Defining Driver Distraction , 2009 .

[18]  J.-b. Ryu,et al.  Assessment of risky driving caused by the amount of time focused on an in-vehicle display system , 2010 .

[19]  Michael G. Lenné,et al.  Effects on driving performance of interacting with an in-vehicle music player: a comparison of three interface layout concepts for information presentation. , 2011, Applied ergonomics.

[20]  Clark R Dickerson,et al.  Field Quantification of Physical Exposures of Police Officers in Vehicle Operation , 2011, International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics : JOSE.

[21]  William J. Horrey.  Assessing the Effects of In-Vehicle Tasks on Driving Performance , 2011 .

[22]  B. Metz,et al.  Attention during visual secondary tasks in driving: Adaptation to the demands of the driving task , 2011 .

[23]  Jeremy D Sudweeks,et al.  Driver performance while text messaging using handheld and in-vehicle systems. , 2011, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[24]  Yulan Liang,et al.  Driver performance effects of simultaneous visual and cognitive distraction and adaptation behavior , 2012 .

[25]  C R Dickerson,et al.  Evaluation of the influence of mobile data terminal location on physical exposures during simulated police patrol activities. , 2012, Applied ergonomics.

[26]  Yili Liu,et al.  Integration of Physical and Cognitive Human Models to Simulate Driving With a Secondary In-Vehicle Task , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[27]  John D. Lee,et al.  How Dangerous Is Looking Away From the Road? Algorithms Predict Crash Risk From Glance Patterns in Naturalistic Driving , 2012, Hum. Factors.

[28]  Eve Mitsopoulos-Rubens,et al.  The effects of using a portable music player on simulated driving performance and task-sharing strategies. , 2012, Applied ergonomics.

[29]  Michael G. Lenné,et al.  Assessment of police subjective workload and preference for using a voice-based interface during simulated driving , 2013 .