Cited by 20Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyInteractive and Immersive DisplaysPersonal Information Management and User Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Driving while using a smartphone-based mobility application: Evaluating the impact of three multi-choice user interfaces on visual-manual distraction

Open access

Abstract

Innovative in-car applications provided on smartphones can deliver real-time alternative mobility choices and subsequently generate visual-manual demand. Prior studies have found that multi-touch gestures such as kinetic scrolling are problematic in this respect. In this study we evaluate three prototype tasks which can be found in common mobile interaction use-cases. In a repeated-measures design, 29 participants interacted with the prototypes in a car-following task within a driving simulator environment. Task completion, driving performance and eye gaze have been analysed. We found that the slider widget used in the filtering task was too demanding and led to poor performance, while kinetic scrolling generated a comparable amount of visual distraction despite it requiring a lower degree of finger pointing accuracy. We discuss how to improve continuous list browsing in a dual-task context.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apergo.2015.11.012

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Alm, 1995, The effects of a mobile telephone task on driver behaviour in a car following situation, Accid. Anal. Prev., 27, 707, 10.1016/0001-4575(95)00026-V · DOI
  2. Chiang, 2004, On the highway measures of driver glance behavior with an example automobile navigation system, Appl. Ergon., 35, 215, 10.1016/j.apergo.2004.01.005 · DOI
  3. Fitts, 1954, The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement, J. Exp. Psychol., 47, 381, 10.1037/h0055392 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Hick, 1952, On the rate of gain of information, Q. J. Exp. Psychol., 4, 11, 10.1080/17470215208416600 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Horberry, 2006, Driver distraction: the effects of concurrent in-vehicle tasks, road environment complexity and age on driving performance, Accid. Anal. Prev., 38, 185, 10.1016/j.aap.2005.09.007 · DOI
  6. Hothorn, 2008, Simultaneous inference in general parametric models, Biom. J., 50, 346, 10.1002/bimj.200810425 · DOI
  7. Jamson, 2010, The validity of a low-cost simulator for the assessment of the effects of in-vehicle information systems, Saf. Sci., 48, 1477, 10.1016/j.ssci.2010.07.008 · DOI
  8. Kemeny, 2003, Evaluating perception in driving simulation experiments, Trends Cogn. Sci., 7, 31, 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00011-6 · DOI
  9. Kim, 2014, Evaluation of the safety and usability of touch gestures in operating in-vehicle information systems with visual occlusion, Appl. Ergon., 45, 789, 10.1016/j.apergo.2013.10.013 · DOI
  10. Kujala, 2013, Browsing the information highway while driving: three in-vehicle touch screen scrolling methods and driver distraction, Personal Ubiquitous Comput., 17, 815, 10.1007/s00779-012-0517-2 · DOI
  11. McCall, 2013, Using gamification and metaphor to design a mobility platform for commuters, Int. J. Mob. Hum. Comput. Interact. (IJMHCI), 5, 1, 10.4018/jmhci.2013010101 · DOI
  12. Noy, 2004, Task interruptability and duration as measures of visual distraction, Appl. Ergon., 35, 207, 10.1016/j.apergo.2003.11.012 · DOI
  13. Paxion, 2014, Mental workload and driving, Front. Psychol., 5
  14. Rydström, 2012, A comparison of two contemporary types of in-car multifunctional interfaces, Appl. Ergon., 43, 507, 10.1016/j.apergo.2011.08.004 · DOI
  15. Treffner, 2004, Hands-free mobile phone speech while driving degrades coordination and control, Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav., 7, 229, 10.1016/j.trf.2004.09.002 · DOI
  16. Young, 2012, The effects of using a portable music player on simulated driving performance and task-sharing strategies, Appl. Ergon., 43, 738, 10.1016/j.apergo.2011.11.007 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Louveton, N., McCall, R., Koenig, V., Avanesov, T., & Engel, T.
Affiliations
University of Luxembourg (LU)
Corresponding author
Louveton, N.
Venue
Applied Ergonomics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-05
Volume
54
Pages
196-204
ISSN
0003-6870 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2239268685
Cited by
20
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2
FWCI
3.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Applied Ergonomics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Fond National de la Recherche (FNR) (11/IS/1204159)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
Keywords
dual-task performance, gaze, driving simulator
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Adult, Attention, Automobile Driving, Choice Behavior, Data Display, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Task Performance and Analysis, User-Computer Interface, Young Adult, Mobile Applications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review