skip to main content
10.1145/1620509.1620528acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesautomotiveuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Enhanced auditory menu cues improve dual task performance and are preferred with in-vehicle technologies

Published:21 September 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

Auditory display research for driving has mainly focused on collision warning signals, and recent studies on auditory in-vehicle information presentation have examined only a limited range of tasks (e.g., cell phone operation tasks or verbal tasks such as reading digit strings). The present study used a dual task paradigm to evaluate a plausible scenario in which users navigated a song list. We applied enhanced auditory menu navigation cues, including spearcons (i.e., compressed speech) and a spindex (i.e., a speech index that used brief audio cues to communicate the user's position in a long menu list). Twenty-four undergraduates navigated through an alphabetized song list of 150 song titles---rendered as an auditory menu---while they concurrently played a simple, perceptual-motor, ball-catching game. The menu was presented with text-to-speech (TTS) alone, TTS plus one of three types of enhanced auditory cues, or no sound at all. Both performance of the primary task (success rate of the game) and the secondary task (menu search time) were better with the auditory menus than with no sound. Subjective workload scores (NASA TLX) and user preferences favored the enhanced auditory cue types. Results are discussed in terms of multiple resources theory and practical IVT design applications.

References

  1. W. J. Horrey and C. D. Wickens, "Driving and side task performance: The effects of display clutter, separation, and modality," Human Factors, vol. 46, p. 611--624, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. W. J. Horrey, C. D. Wickens, and K. P. Consalus, "Modeling drivers' visual attention allocation while interacting with in-vehicle technologies," Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, vol. 12, pp. 67--78, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. S. Ashley, "Driving the info highway," Scientific American, vol. 285, pp. 44--50, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. T. Dukic, L. Hanson, and T. Falkmer, "Effect of drivers' age and push button locations on visual time off road, steering wheel deviation and safety perception," Ergonomics, vol. 49, pp. 78--92, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. C. Patten, A. Kircher, J. Ostlund, and L. Nilsson, "Using mobile telephones: Cognitive workload and attention resource allocation," Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 36, pp. 341--350, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. T. C. Lansdown, N. Brook-Carter, and T. Kersloot, "Distraction from multiple in-vehicle secondary tasks: Vehicle performance and mental workload implications," Ergonomics, vol. 47, pp. 91--104, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. O. Tsimhoni and P. A. Green, "Visual demand of driving and the execution of display-intensive in-vehicle tasks," in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (HFES 2001). vol. 2, 2001, pp. 1586--1590.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. P. C. Burns and T. C. Lansdown, "E-Distraction: The challenges for safe and usable internet services in vehicles.," in Internet Forum on the Safety Impact of Driver Distraction When Using In-Vehicle Technologies www.driverdistraction.org, 2000, July--August.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. F. Schieber, A. Holtz, B. Schlorholtz, and R. McCall, "Analysis of visual demands of in-vehicle text displays reveals an age-related increase in time needed to reallocate attention to the road," in Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES2008). vol. 52, 2008, pp. 149--153.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. S. Brewster, "Using non-speech sound to overcome information overload," Displays, vol. 17, pp. 179--189, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. M. L. Brown, S. L. Newsome, and E. P. Glinert, "An experiment into the use of auditory cues to reduce visual workload," in ACM CHI 89 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference (CHI 89), 1989, pp. 339--346. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Y. C. Liu, "Comparative study of the effects of auditory, visual and multimodality displays on drivers' performance in advanced traveller information systems," Ergonomics, vol. 44, pp. 425--442, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. C. D. Wickens, "Multiple resources and performance prediction," Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, vol. 3, pp. 159--177, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. C. D. Wickens and Y. Liu, "Codes and modalities in multiple resources: A success and a qualification," Human Factors, vol. 30, pp. 599--616, 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. C. Spence and J. Driver, "Audiovisual links in attention: Implications for interface design," in Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics Vol. 2: Job Design and Product Design, D. Harris, Ed. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, 1997, pp. 185--192.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. N. A. Stanton, R. T. Booth, and R. B. Stammers, "Alarms in human supervisory control: A human factors perspective," International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 5, pp. 81--93, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. G. Matthews, T. J. Sparkes, and H. M. Bygrave, "Attentional overload, stress, and simulate driving performance," Human Performance, vol. 9, pp. 77--101, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. J. D. Lee, B. F. Gore, and J. L. Campbell, "Display alternatives for in-vehicle warning and sign information: Message style, location, and modality," Transportation Human Factors, vol. 1, pp. 347--375, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. T. A. Dingus, D. V. McGehee, N. Manakkal, S. K. Jahns, C. Carney, and J. M. Hankey, "Human factors field evaluation of automotive headway maintenance/collision warning devices," Human Factors, vol. 39, pp. 216--229, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. D. L. Strayer and F. A. Drews, "Cell-phone-induced driver distraction," Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 16, pp. 128--131, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. M. A. Mollenhauer, J. D. Lee, K. Cho, M. C. Hulse, and T. A. Dingus, "The effects of sensory modality and information priority on in-vehicle signing and information systems," in Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES 1994). vol. 38: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1994, pp. 1072--1076.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. A. Parkes and G. Burnett, "An evaluation of medium range "advance information" in route-guidance displays for use in vehicles," in IEEE Vehicle Navigation&Information Systems Conference Ottawa, Canada, 1993, pp. 238--241.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. T. A. Ranney, J. L. Harbluk, and Y. I. Noy, "Effects of voice technology on test track driving performance: Implications for driver distraction," Human Factors, vol. 47, p. 439--454, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. G. E. Burnett and S. M. Joyner, "An assessment of moving map and symbol-based route guidance systems," Ergonomics and Safety of Intelligent Driver Interfaces, pp. 115--136, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. T. A. Dingus, M. C. Hulse, D. V. McGehee, and R. Manakkal, "Driver performance results from the TravTek IVHS camera car evaluation study," in Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES 1994). vol. 38: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1994, pp. 1118--1122.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. K. W. Gish, L. Staplin, J. Stewart, and M. Perel, "Sensory and cognitive factors affecting automotive head-up display effectiveness," Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 1694, pp. 10--19, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. L. Streeter, D. Vitello, and S. Wonsiewicz, "How to tell people where to go: Comparing navigational aids," International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, vol. 22, pp. 549--562, 1985. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. J. Walker, E. Alicandri, C. Sedney, and K. Roberts, "In-vehicle navigation devices: Effects on the safety of driver performance," McLean, VA: Performer: Federal Highway Administration, Office of Safety and Traffic Operations Research and Development, 1991, p. 107.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. C. Ho and C. Spence, "Assessing the effectiveness of various auditory cues in capturing a driver's visual attnetion," Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, vol. 11, pp. 157--174, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. B. N. Walker, A. Nance, and J. Lindsay, "Spearcons: Speech-based earcons improve navigation performance in auditory menus," in International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD2006) London, UK, 2006, pp. 95--98.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. W. W. Gaver, "Using and creating auditory icons," in Auditory display: Sonificaiton, audification, and auditory interfaces, G. Kramer, Ed. MA: Addison-Wesley, 1994, pp. 417--446.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. M. M. Blattner, D. A. Sumikawa, and R. M. Greenberg, "Earcons and icons: Their structure and common design principles," Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 4, pp. 11--44, 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. D. Palladino and B. N. Walker, "Navigation efficiency of two dimensional auditory menus using spearcon enhancements," in Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES 2008) New York, NY (22--26 September), 2008, pp. 1262--1266.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. D. Palladino and B. N. Walker, "Efficiency of spearcon-enhanced navigation of one dimensional electronic menus," in International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD08) Paris, France, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. B. N. Walker and A. Kogan, "Spearcons enhance performance and preference for auditory menus on a mobile phone," in 5th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction (UAHCI) at HCI International 2009 San Diego, CA, USA, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. T. Dingler, J. Lindsay, and B. N. Walker, "Learnability of sound cues for environmental features: Auditory icons, earcons, spearcons, and speech," in 15th International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD 08) Paris, France, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. D. Palladino and B. N. Walker, "Learning rates for auditory menus enhanced with spearcons versus earcons," in International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD2007) Montreal, Canada, 2007, pp. 274--279.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. M. Jeon and B. N. Walker, ""Spindex": Accelerated initial speech sounds improve navigation performance in auditory menus," in Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES 2009) San Antonio, TX, 2009, p. TBD.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. P. Klante, "Auditory interaction objects for mobile applications," in 24th annual ACM International Conference on Design of Communication Myrtle Beach, SC, USA, 2004, pp. 157--163.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. M. Jeon and B. N. Walker, "Optimized spindex improves both acceptance and performance with auditory menus," Georgia Institute of Technology Sonification Lab Technical Report, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. A. Treisman and A. Davies, "Divided attention to ear and eye," Attention and Performance IV, pp. 101--117, 1973.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. D. Gopher, M. Brickner, and D. Navon, "Different difficulty manipulations interact differently with task emphasis: Evidence for multiple resources," Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, vol. 8, pp. 146--157, 1982.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. A.-M. Bonnel and E. R. Hafter, "Divided attention between simltaneous auditory and visual signals," Percpetion&Psychophysics, vol. 60, pp. 179--190, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. S. G. Hart, "NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later," in Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting San Francisco, CA, 2006, pp. 904--908.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. J. Edworthy, "Does sound help us to work better with machines? A commentary on Rautenberg's paper 'About the importance of auditory alarms during the operation of a plant simulator'," Interacting with Computers, vol. 10, pp. 401--409, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. G. Kramer, "An introduction to auditory display," in Auditory display: Sonification, audification, and auditory interfaces, G. Kramer, Ed. MA: Addison Wesley, 1994, pp. 1--78. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Enhanced auditory menu cues improve dual task performance and are preferred with in-vehicle technologies

                    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

                    PDF Format

                    View or Download as a PDF file.

                    PDF

                    eReader

                    View online with eReader.

                    eReader