Trial reportErgonomics2016
Multi-modal assessment of on-road demand of voice and manual phone calling and voice navigation entry across two embedded vehicle systems.
Trial report in Ergonomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vigilance Decrement During On-Road Partially Automated Driving Across Four Systems.Human factors · 2024Article
- Assessing driver distraction from in-vehicle information system: an on-road study exploring the effects of input modalities and secondary task types.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Let Complexity Bring Clarity: A Multidimensional Assessment of Cognitive Load Using Physiological Measures.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2022Article
- Assessing the visual and cognitive demands of in-vehicle information systems.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2019Article
- Multi-modal demands of a smartphone used to place calls and enter addresses during highway driving relative to two embedded systems.Ergonomics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrigendum.2016
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One purpose of integrating voice interfaces into embedded vehicle systems is to reduce drivers' visual and manual distractions with 'infotainment' technologies. However, there is scant research on actual benefits in production vehicles or how different interface designs affect attentional demands. Driving performance, visual engagement, and indices of workload (heart rate, skin conductance, subjective ratings) were assessed in 80 drivers randomly assigned to drive a 2013 Chevrolet Equinox or Volvo XC60. The Chevrolet MyLink system allowed completing tasks with one voice command, while the Volvo Sensus required multiple commands to navigate the menu structure. When calling a phone contact, both voice systems reduced visual demand relative to the visual-manual interfaces, with reductions for drivers in the Equinox being greater. The Equinox 'one-shot' voice command showed advantages during contact calling but had significantly higher error rates than Sensus during destination address entry. For both secondary tasks, neither voice interface entirely eliminated visual demand. Practitioner Summary: The findings reinforce the observation that most, if not all, automotive auditory-vocal interfaces are multi-modal interfaces in which the full range of potential demands (auditory, vocal, visual, manipulative, cognitive, tactile, etc.) need to be considered in developing optimal implementations and evaluating drivers' interaction with the systems. Social Media: In-vehicle voice-interfaces can reduce visual demand but do not eliminate it and all types of demand need to be taken into account in a comprehensive evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.