Predicting the effects of in-car interface use on driver performance: an integrated model approach

While researchers have made great strides in evaluating and comparing user interfaces using computational models and frameworks, their work has focused almost exclusively on interfaces that serve as the only or primary task for the user. This paper presents an approach of evaluating and comparing interfaces that users interact with as secondary tasks while executing a more critical primary task. The approach centers on the integration of two computational behavioral models, one for the primary task and another for the secondary task. The resulting integrated model can then execute both tasks together and generate a priori predictions about the effects of one task on the other. The paper focuses in particular on the domain of driving and the comparison of four dialing interfaces for in-car cellular phones. Using the ACT-R cognitive architecture (Anderson & Lebiere, 1998) as a computational framework, behavioral models for each possible dialing interface were integrated with an existing model of driver behavior (Salvucci, Boer & Liu, in press). The integrated model predicted that two different manual-dialing interfaces would have significant effects on driver steering performance while two different voice-dialing interfaces would have no significant effect on performance. An empirical study conducted with human drivers in a driving simulator showed that while model and human performance differed with respect to overall magnitudes, the model correctly predicted the overall pattern of effects for human drivers. These results suggest that the integration of computational behavioral models provides a useful, practical method for predicting the effects of secondary-task interface use on primary-task performance.

[1]  David E. Kieras,et al.  Towards a Practical GOMS Model Methodology for User Interface Design , 1988 .

[2]  Constance S. Royden,et al.  From vision to action: experiments and models of steering control during driving. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[4]  David E. Kieras,et al.  The GOMS family of user interface analysis techniques: comparison and contrast , 1996, TCHI.

[5]  Allen Newell,et al.  The psychology of human-computer interaction , 1983 .

[6]  A J McKnight,et al.  The effect of cellular phone use upon driver attention. , 1993, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[7]  D E Kieras,et al.  A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. , 1997, Psychological review.

[8]  Karel Brookhuis,et al.  MEASURING DRIVING PERFORMANCE BY CAR-FOLLOWING IN TRAFFIC , 1994 .

[9]  H Godthelp,et al.  Vehicle Control During Curve Driving , 1986, Human factors.

[10]  Edmund Donges,et al.  A Two-Level Model of Driver Steering Behavior , 1978 .

[11]  David N. Lee,et al.  Where we look when we steer , 1994, Nature.

[12]  T. Landauer,et al.  Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction , 1997 .

[13]  Dario D. Salvucci Predicting the effects of in-car interfaces on driver behavior using a cognitive architecture , 2001, CHI.

[14]  H. Pashler Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  Dario D. Salvucci An integrated model of eye movements and visual encoding , 2001, Cognitive Systems Research.

[16]  Bonnie E. John Extensions of GOMS analyses to expert performance requiring perception of dynamic visual and auditory information , 1990, CHI '90.

[17]  John A. Michon,et al.  Soar: A Cognitive Architecture in Perspective , 1992 .

[18]  David E. Kieras,et al.  Predictive engineering models based on the EPIC architecture for a multimodal high-performance human-computer interaction task , 1997, TCHI.

[19]  Michael D. Byrne,et al.  ACT-R/PM and menu selection: applying a cognitive architecture to HCI , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[20]  Paul Green,et al.  DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN FACTORS TESTS OF CAR PHONES. FINAL REPORT , 1993 .

[21]  Jannes Aasman,et al.  Modelling driver behaviour in soar , 1995 .

[22]  Michael E. Atwood,et al.  Project Ernestine: Validating a GOMS Analysis for Predicting and Explaining Real-World Task Performance , 1993, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[23]  C. Lebiere,et al.  An integrated theory of list memory. , 1998 .

[24]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  A. Modjtahedzadeh,et al.  A control theoretic model of driver steering behavior , 1990, IEEE Control Systems Magazine.

[26]  K. VanLehn Architectures for Intelligence: The Twenty-Second Carnegie Symposium on Cognition , 1990 .

[27]  C. Lebiere,et al.  The Atomic Components of Thought , 1998 .

[28]  H Alm,et al.  The effects of a mobile telephone task on driver behaviour in a car following situation. , 1995, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[29]  H Alm,et al.  Changes in driver behaviour as a function of handsfree mobile phones--a simulator study. , 1994, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[30]  Allen Newell,et al.  SOAR: An Architecture for General Intelligence , 1987, Artif. Intell..

[31]  A. Newell Unified Theories of Cognition , 1990 .

[32]  Jans Aasman,et al.  Multitasking in Driving , 1992 .

[33]  K. VanLehn Architectures for Intelligence , 1999 .

[34]  Erwin R. Boer,et al.  Toward an Integrated Model of Driver Behavior in Cognitive Architecture , 2001 .

[35]  K A Brookhuis,et al.  The effects of mobile telephoning on driving performance. , 1991, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[36]  Paul Green,et al.  Car Phone Usability: A Human Factors Laboratory Test , 1993 .