Evaluating User Response to In-Car Haptic Feedback Touchscreens Using the Lane Change Test

Touchscreen interfaces are widely used in modern technology, from mobile devices to in-car infotainment systems. However, touchscreens impose significant visual workload demands on the user which have safety implications for use in cars. Previous studies indicate that the application of haptic feedback can improve both performance of and affective response to user interfaces. This paper reports on and extends the findings of a 2009 study conducted to evaluate the effects of different combinations of touchscreen visual, audible, and haptic feedback on driving and task performance, affective response, and subjective workload; the initial findings of which were originally published in (M. J. Pitts et al., 2009). A total of 48 non-expert users completed the study. A dual-task approach was applied, using the Lane Change Test as the driving task and realistic automotive use case touchscreen tasks. Results indicated that, while feedback type had no effect on driving or task performance, preference was expressed for multimodal feedback over visual alone. Issues relating to workload and cross-modal interaction were also identified.

[1]  Tom Wellings,et al.  Assessing subjective response to haptic feedback in automotive touchscreens , 2009, AutomotiveUI.

[2]  Matthew P. Reed,et al.  Comparison of driving performance on-road and in a low-cost simulator using a concurrent telephone dialling task , 1999 .

[3]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[4]  Thomas J Triggs,et al.  Driving simulator validation for speed research. , 2002, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[5]  Nigel Bevan,et al.  Usability is Quality of Use , 1995 .

[6]  G. Deco,et al.  Multisensory contributions to the perception of vibrotactile events , 2009, Behavioural Brain Research.

[7]  Linda R. Elliott,et al.  Comparing the effects of visual-auditory and visual-tactile feedback on user performance: a meta-analysis , 2006, ICMI '06.

[8]  Tom Wellings,et al.  Customer perception of switch-feel in luxury sports utility vehicles , 2008 .

[9]  D. Norman.  Emotional design : why we love (or hate) everyday things , 2004 .

[10]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  RISK TAKING IN SIMULATED ENVIRONMENTS: EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO RISK HOMEOSTASIS THEORY , 1997 .

[11]  Ju-Hwan Lee,et al.  Assessing the benefits of multimodal feedback on dual-task performance under demanding conditions , 2008, BCS HCI.

[12]  B. Rolls.  Sensory evaluation practices, Herbert Stone, Joel L. Sidel. Academic Press, Orlando, FL (1985), 311, $39·50 , 1986 .

[13]  Tom Wellings,et al.  Tactility, craftsmanship and the NPI process , 2005 .

[14]  Michael G. Lenné,et al.  Utility of the lane change test in exploring the effects on driving performance of engaging in additional in-vehicle tasks while driving , 2010 .

[15]  Andreas Butz,et al.  HapTouch and the 2+1 state model: potentials of haptic feedback on touch based in-vehicle information systems , 2010, AutomotiveUI.

[16]  C. Spence,et al.  Auditory contributions to multisensory product perception , 2006 .

[17]  Gary E. Burnett,et al.  Ubiquitous computing within cars: designing controls for non-visual use , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[18]  Corinne Brusque,et al.  Consistency and sensitivity of lane change test according to driving simulator characteristics , 2008 .

[19]  Tom Wellings,et al.  Understanding customers' holistic perception of switches in automotive human-machine interfaces. , 2010, Applied ergonomics.

[20]  Josef F. Krems,et al.  Learning effects in the lane change task (LCT)—Evidence from two experimental studies , 2011 .

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

[22]  Virpi Roto,et al.  User experience evaluation methods: current state and development needs , 2010, NordiCHI.

[23]  Domenic V. Cicchetti,et al.  Extension of multiple-range tests to interaction tables in the analysis of variance: A rapid approximate solution. , 1972 .

[24]  Andrew Sears,et al.  A new era for high precision touchscreens , 1993 .

[25]  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 .

[26]  C. Spence,et al.  Audiotactile interactions in temporal perception , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[27]  Peter Bengtsson,et al.  Driver behaviour during haptic and visual secondary tasks , 2009, AutomotiveUI.

[28]  Stephen A. Brewster,et al.  Investigating the effectiveness of tactile feedback for mobile touchscreens , 2008, CHI.

[29]  Lee Skrypchuk,et al.  Visual-haptic feedback interaction in automotive touchscreens , 2012, Displays.

[30]  Michael G. Lenné,et al.  Sensitivity of the lane change test as a measure of in-vehicle system demand. , 2011, Applied ergonomics.

[31]  Karon E. MacLean,et al.  Evaluation of haptically augmented touchscreen gui elements under cognitive load , 2007, ICMI '07.

[32]  Michael Dean Tschirhart,et al.  User Experience in the U.S. and Germany of In-Vehicle Touch Screens with Integrated Haptic and Auditory Feedback , 2007 .

[33]  H. Abdi.  The Bonferonni and Šidák Corrections for Multiple Comparisons , 2006 .

[34]  Jan Stage,et al.  Handbook of Research on User Interface Design and Evaluation for Mobile Technology , 2008 .

[35]  Jun Rekimoto,et al.  Ambient touch: designing tactile interfaces for handheld devices , 2002, UIST '02.