Speech input applications for driving: using different levels of fidelity in simulator research

Transport simulators provide the potential to isolate specific variables to test for differences in controlled experiments. If simulators operate on a spectrum from low-end, paper based schematics, through to high-end full replica systems, there are fundamental issues associated with how “fit for purpose” they might be. The physical and functional fidelity of simulators are key factors in their successful implementation as well as issues of face validity and ecological validity (the extent to which research findings generalize from one setting to another). This paper explores different levels of fidelity across a number of experiments that were conducted as part of the UK Government LINK Inland Surface Transport (IST) program that investigated the potential impact of speech input systems in automotive applications. The findings illustrate that high-end simulation is not always required, especially in exploratory studies where fundamental principles are identified for further examination. However, there comes a point where more realistic driving tasks and contexts are required to develop higher levels of fidelity and enhance the ecological validity of results and the application of knowledge beyond the laboratory and into the real world.

[1]  Orit Shaer,et al.  Reality-based interaction: a framework for post-WIMP interfaces , 2008, CHI.

[2]  John R. Hershey,et al.  Monaural speech separation and recognition challenge , 2010, Comput. Speech Lang..

[3]  Frank Drews,et al.  Text Messaging During Simulated Driving , 2009, Hum. Factors.

[4]  Elizabeth Zoltan-Ford,et al.  How to Get People to Say and Type What Computers Can Understand , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[5]  Gary E. Burnett,et al.  An extended keystroke level model (KLM) for predicting the visual demand of in-vehicle information systems , 2007, CHI.

[6]  Christian A. Müller,et al.  Multimodal Input in the Car, Today and Tomorrow , 2011, IEEE MultiMedia.

[7]  Mark Billinghurst,et al.  A Wizard of Oz study for an AR multimodal interface , 2008, ICMI '08.

[8]  James R. Lewis,et al.  Practical Speech User Interface Design , 2010 .

[9]  Terry C. Lansdown,et al.  The design of in-car speech recognition interfaces for usability and user acceptance , 1998 .

[10]  David Rice,et al.  'MotorcycleSim': An Evaluation of Rider Interaction with an Innovative Motorcycle Simulator , 2011, Comput. J..

[11]  Robert S. Kennedy,et al.  Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. , 1993 .

[12]  Jan Noyes Talking and writing-how natural in human-machine interaction? , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  N A Stanton,et al.  What's skill got to do with it? Vehicle automation and driver mental workload , 2007, Ergonomics.

[14]  Sarah Sharples,et al.  Datalink in air traffic management: Human factors issues in communications. , 2007, Applied ergonomics.

[15]  John R. Wilson,et al.  Measurement of presence and its consequences in virtual environments , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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

[17]  Oliver Lemon,et al.  Learning what to say and how to say it: Joint optimisation of spoken dialogue management and natural language generation , 2011, Comput. Speech Lang..

[18]  Jan Noyes,et al.  Automatic Speech Recognition in Adverse Environments , 1996, Hum. Factors.

[19]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  Taking the load off: investigations of how adaptive cruise control affects mental workload , 2004, Ergonomics.

[20]  Daniel P. W. Ellis,et al.  Human Speech Recognition , 2011 .

[21]  R. Wade Allen,et al.  A simulator study of the safety implications of cellular mobile phone use , 1987 .

[22]  Sarah Sharples,et al.  Developing speech input for virtual reality applications: A reality based interaction approach , 2011, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[23]  Jan Noyes,et al.  Workload and the use of automatic speech recognition: The effects of time and resource demands , 1996, Speech Commun..

[24]  Bryan Reimer,et al.  Impact of Cognitive Task Complexity on Drivers’ Visual Tunneling , 2009 .

[25]  Jeffry Allen Greenberg,et al.  Physical Fidelity of Driving Simulators , 2011 .

[26]  Thomas J Triggs,et al.  Contemporary use of simulation in traffic psychology research: Bringing home the Bacon? , 2011 .

[27]  Andry Rakotonirainy,et al.  Driving performance impairments due to hypovigilance on monotonous roads. , 2011, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[28]  Alex W. Stedmon,et al.  Re-viewing reality: human factors of synthetic training environments , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[29]  Hugh Coolican Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology , 1993 .

[30]  Alex W. Stedmon,et al.  Baselining behaviour: driving towards more realistic simulations , 2001 .

[31]  Alessandro De Gloria,et al.  Towards the Automotive HMI of the Future: Overview of the AIDE-Integrated Project Results , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[32]  Frank A. Drews,et al.  Profiles in Cell Phone-Induced Driver Distraction , 2011 .

[33]  M L Cook,et al.  Simulator Fidelity and Validity in a Transfer-of-Training Context , 2010 .

[34]  Charlotte Linde,et al.  Field Study of Communication and Workload in Police Helicopters: Implications for AI Cockpit Design , 1988 .

[35]  Hugh Coolican Research Methods and Statistics , 1999 .

[36]  Mark S. Young,et al.  Miles away: determining the extent of secondary task interference on simulated driving , 2007 .

[37]  Gary Burnett,et al.  Designing and Evaluating In-Car User-Interfaces , 2008 .

[38]  Kathryn M. Godfrey,et al.  Age and cross-cultural comparison of drivers’ cognitive workload and performance in simulated urban driving , 2010 .

[39]  Peter A. Hancock,et al.  Human Factors in Simulation and Training , 2008 .

[40]  Shauna L. Hallmark,et al.  Matching Simulator Characteristics to Highway Design Problems , 2011 .

[41]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  Aftereffects and Sense of Presence in Virtual Environments: Formulation of a Research and Development Agenda , 1998, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[42]  Paul M. Salmon,et al.  The effects of motion on in-vehicle touch screen system operation: A battle management system case study , 2011 .

[43]  J. Dankelman,et al.  Relationships between driving simulator performance and driving test results , 2009, Ergonomics.

[44]  R. B. Stammers Psychological Aspects of Simulator Design and Use , 1986 .

[45]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Simulators: a review of research and practice , 1996 .