skip to main content
10.1145/3136755.3136787acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesicmi-mlmiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

“Stop over there”: natural gesture and speech interaction for non-critical spontaneous intervention in autonomous driving

Published:03 November 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

We propose a new multimodal input technique for Non-critical Spontaneous Situations (NCSSs) in autonomous driving scenarios such as selecting a parking lot or picking up a hitchhiker. Speech and deictic (pointing) gestures were combined to instruct the car about desired interventions which include spatial references to the current environment (e.g., ''stop over [pointing] there'' or ''take [pointing] this parking lot''). In this way, advantages from both modalities were exploited: Speech allows for selecting from many maneuvres and functions in the car (e.g., stop, park), whereas deictic gestures provide a natural and intuitive way of indicating spatial discourse referents used in these interventions (e.g., near this tree, that parking lot). The speech and pointing gesture input was compared to speech and touch-based input in a user study with 38 participants. The touch-based input was selected as a baseline due to its widespread use in in-car touch screens. The evaluation showed that speech and pointing gestures are perceived more natural, intuitive and less cognitively demanding compared to speech and touch and are thus recommended as NCSSs intervention technique for autonomous driving.

References

  1. Leonardo Angelini, Andreas Sonderegger, Jürgen Baumgartner, Francesco Carrino, Stefano Carrino, Maurizio Caon, Omar Abou Khaled, Jürgen Sauer, Denis Lalanne, and Elena Mugellini. 2016. Comparing Gesture, Speech and Touch Interaction Modalities for In-Vehicle Infotainment Systems. Actes de la 28ieme conference francophone sur l’Interaction Homme-Machine on - IHM ’16: 188-196.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Richard Bolt. 1980. ”Put-that-there.” Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques - SIGGRAPH ’80: 262-270. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. James Bucanek. 2009. Model-View-Controller Pattern. In Learn Objective-C for Java Developers. Apress, Berkeley, CA, 353-402. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Stephen Casner, Edwin Hutchins, and Don Norman. 2016. The Challenges of Partially Automated Driving. Communications of the ACM 59, 5: 70-77. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. David Cohen, Akshay Chandrashekaran, Ian Lane, and Antoine Raux. 2014. The HRI-CMU Corpus of Situated In-Car Interactions. International Workshop Series on Spoken Dialogue Systems Technology: 201-212.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Nils Dahlbäck, Arne Jönsson, and Lars Ahrenberg. 1993. Wizard of Oz studies - why and how. Knowledge-Based Systems 6, 4: 258-266. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Murat Dikmen and Catharine Burns. 2016. Autonomous Driving in the Real World: Experiences with Tesla Autopilot and Summon. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI ’16), Ann Arbor, MI, USA., 225-228. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Mica Endsley and David Kaber. 1999. Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics 42, 3: 462-492.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Martin Fischbach. 2015. Software Techniques for Multimodal Input Processing in Realtime Interactive Systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimodal Interaction - ICMI’15: 623-627. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Yannick Forster, Frederik Naujoks, and Alexandra Neukum. 2016. Your Turn or My Turn? Design of a Human-Machine Interface for Conditional Automation Your Turn or My Turn? Design of a Human-Machine Interface for Conditional Automation. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications - AutomotiveUI’16, 253-260. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Tom Michael Gasser. 2012. Ergebnisse der Projektgruppe Automatisierung: Rechtsfolgen zunehmender Fahrzeugautomatisierung. Bergisch Gladbach.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Daniel Göhring, David Latotzky, Miao Wang, and Raul Rojas. 2013. Semi-autonomous Car Control Using Brain Computer Interfaces. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 393-408.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Sandra Hart. 2006. Nasa-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) 20 Years Later. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 50, 9: 904-908.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Sandra Hart and Lowell E. Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. Advances in Psychology 52, C: 139-183.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Renate Hauslschmid, Benjamin Menrad, and Andreas Butz. 2015. Freehand vs. micro gestures in the car: Driving performance and user experience. 2015 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI) 336: 159-160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Hiroshi Ishii and Brygg Ullmer. 1997. Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits, and atoms. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, 234-241. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Michaela Kauer, Benjamin Franz, Michael Schreiber, Ralph Bruder, and Sebastian Geyer. 2012. User acceptance of cooperative maneuverbased driving - A summary of three studies. Work 41, SUPPL.1: 4258-4264.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Martin Kienle, Daniel Damböck, Heiner Bubb, and Klaus Bengler. 2013. The ergonomic value of a bidirectional haptic interface when driving a highly automated vehicle. Cognition, Technology and Work 15, 4: 475-482. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Denis Lalanne, Laurence Nigay, Philippe Palanque, Peter Robinson, Jean Vanderdonckt, and Jean-Francois Ladry. 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Fusion engines for multimodal input: a survey. International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces: 153-160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Marc Erich Latoschik. 2001. A General Framework for Multi-Modal Interaction in Virtual Reality Systems: PrOSA. In The Future of VR and AR Interfaces-Multimodal, 21-25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Marc Erich Latoschik. 2002. Designing transition networks for multimodal VR-interactions using a markup language. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces - ICMI’02: 411-416. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Marc Erich Latoschik. 2005. A user interface framework for multimodal VR interactions. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces - ICMI’05, 76-83. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Marc Erich Latoschik and Christian Fröhlich. 2007. Semantic reflection for intelligent virtual environments. In Proceedings - IEEE Virtual Reality, 305-306.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Marc Erich Latoschik and Ipke Wachsmuth. 1998. Exploiting distant pointing gestures for object selection in a virtual environment. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 185-196.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Sebastian Loehmann, Martin Knobel, Melanie Lamara, and Andreas Butz. 2013. Culturally independent gestures for incar interactions. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 538-545.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Jannette Maciej and Mark Vollrath. 2009. Comparison of manual vs. speech-based interaction with in-vehicle information systems. Accident Analysis & Prevention 41, 5: 924-930.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Microsoft Corporation. 2014. Visual Gesture Builder (VGB). Retrieved February 24, 2017 from https://msdn.microsoft. com/de-de/library/dn785304.aspxGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Anja Naumann, Jörn Hurtienne, Johann Habakuk Israel, Carsten Mohs, Martin Christof Kindsmüller, Herbert A. Meyer, Steffi Husslein, and IUUI Research Group. 2007. Intuitive use of user interfaces: Defining a vague concept. Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics: 128-136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. NHTSA. 2013. Preliminary statement of policy concerning automated vehicles. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 1-14. ICMI’17, November 13–17, 2017, Glasgow, UK Tscharn, Latoschik, Löffler, and HurtienneGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Sharon Oviatt. 1999. Ten myths of multimodal interaction. Communications of the ACM 42, 11: 74-81. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Thies Pfeiffer and Marc Erich Latoschik. 2004. Resolving object references in multimodal dialogues for immersive virtual environments. In Proceedings - Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, 35-42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Bastian Pfleging, Stefan Schneegass, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2012. Multimodal interaction in the car - combining speech and gestures on the steering wheel. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 155-162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Bernhard Preim and Raimund Dachselt. 2015. Interaktive Systeme: Band 2: User Interface Engineering, 3D-Interaktion. Springer Vieweg: Wiesbaden.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Jonas Radlmayr and Klaus Bengler. 2015. Literaturanalyse und Methodenauswahl zur Gestaltung von Systemen zum hochautomatisierten Fahren. FAT-Schriftenreihe 276: 1-57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Jonas Radlmayr, Christian Gold, Lutz Lorenz, Mehdi Farid, and Klaus Bengler. 2014. How Traffic Situations and Nondriving-Related Tasks Affect the Takeover Quality in Highly Automated Driving. In Human Factors and Ergonomics Annual Meeting, 2063-2067.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Ramesh Raskar, Greg Welch, Matt Cutts, Adam Lake, Lev Stesin, and Henry Fuchs. 1998. The Office of the FutureâĂŕ: A Unified Approach to Image-Based Modeling and Spatially Immersive Displays. SIGGRAPH ’98 Proceedings of the 25th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques: 1-10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Leah M. Reeves, Jean-Claude Martin, Michael McTear, TV Raman, Kay M. Stanney, Hui Su, Qian Ying Wang, Jennifer Lai, James A. Larson, Sharon Oviatt, T. S. Balaji, Stephanie Buisine, Penny Collings, Phil Cohen, and Ben Kraal. 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Guidelines for multimodal user interface design. Communications of the ACM 47, 1: 57-59. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Sonja Rümelin, Chadly Marouane, and Andreas Butz. 2013. Free-hand pointing for identification and interaction with distant objects. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI ’13): 40-47. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. JR Treat. 1977. Tri-Level Study of the Causes of Traffic Accidents: An overview of final results. In Proceedings of the American Association for Automotive Medicine Annual Conference, 391-403.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Matthew Turk. 2014. Multimodal interaction: A review. Pattern Recognition Letters 36, 189-195. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Volvo. 2013. Volvo Trucks European Accident Research and Safety Report 2013. Retrieved February 20, 2017 from https:// www.kenallenlaw.com/2013/02/new-volvo-truck-study-9out-of-10-truck-accidents-in-europe-caused-by-humanfactor-including-distracted-driving-while-ntsa-proposesnew-trucking-regs-to-fmsca-after-2011-nevada-crash/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Marcel Walch, Tobias Sieber, Philipp Hock, Martin Baumann, and Michael Weber. 2016. Towards Cooperative Driving: Involving the Driver in an Autonomous Vehicle’s Decision Making. In Proceedings of AutomotiveUI’16: 261-268. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Daniel Wigdor and Dennis Wixon. 2011. Brave NUI world: designing natural user interfaces for touch and gesture. Elsevier. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. “Stop over there”: natural gesture and speech interaction for non-critical spontaneous intervention in autonomous driving

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ICMI '17: Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction
      November 2017
      676 pages
      ISBN:9781450355438
      DOI:10.1145/3136755

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 3 November 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      ICMI '17 Paper Acceptance Rate65of149submissions,44%Overall Acceptance Rate453of1,080submissions,42%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader