The Impact of and Adaptive User Interface

on Reducing Driver Distraction

Authors: Patrick Tchankue, Janet Wesson and Dieter Vogts

3rd International Conference on Automotive User Interface,

November 29-December 2, 2011, Salzburg, Austria

Overview

• Background

• In-Car Communication Systems

• Driver Distraction

• Adaptive Interfaces

• Architecture of MIMI

• User Study

• Results

• Conclusion & Future work

Background

• In-Car Infotainment Systems are becoming common

– Information: communication, navigation and safety;

– Entertainment: radio, CD and games;

– Hands-free and eyes-free: voice-activated;

• Existing UI were not initially designed for such

applications

In-Car Communication Systems (ICCS)

• Most common component of in-car systems:

– Manage calls, text messages and contacts in the car via

Bluetooth (hands-free);

– Use speech (eyes-free) and steering wheels buttons (hands-

free) as input channel.

• Examples of ICCS:

Name Manufacturer Year

iDrive BMW 2001

Blue&Me Fiat 2004

SYNC Ford 2007

IQon SAAB 2011

Driver Distraction

• Driver distraction occurs when the driver’s attention is

diverted from driving to the extent that the driver is no

longer able to drive adequately or safely (Young &

Regan, 2005).

• Type of driver distraction:

– Visual: taking your eyes off the road;

– Auditory: internal and external noises;

– Manual: taking your hands off the steering wheel; and

– Cognitive: taking your mind off what you’re doing.

• Texting can cause more serious driver distraction.

Adaptive Interfaces

• Interfaces able to adapt to specific user, task or

situations;

• Inferring the distraction level;

– Fuzzy logic;

– Support Vector Machine;

– Neural networks;

• Adaptation effects

– Delaying calls and text messages;

– Resuming the notification process;

– Warn drivers before potential dangerous outgoing events

Input Module (A)

Architecture of MIMI

NL Understanding

Multimodal Fusion

ASR

Dia

log

ue

ma

na

ge

r (C

)

Mobile phone

Adaptive module

Inputs

Dialogue

history

Task

progress

Workload

manager

Knowledge base

User

model

Task

model

Context

model

Adaptive engine

Mobile phone

interface (B)

Output Module (D)

CAN bus

Phonebook DB

NL

generation TTS

Dialogue engine

Architecture of MIMI (cont.)

• Workload manager

speed

Δ speed

angle

Δ angle

Distraction

level

1 = very low

3 = mid

5 = very high

2 = low

4 = high

User Study

• Aim

– Usability (task success, errors, effectiveness of tasks, time of

task)

– Safety (cognitive load, mean lateral deviation, perceived safety,

adaptation)

• Methodology

• Participants

– 30 students

• Tasks

– Calling

– Sending text messages

Results (cont.)

• Usability

Comparison of the usability of the non-adaptive and adaptive version of MIMI (n=30)

6.10

6.23 5.73

5.43

4.47

6.17

6.33 5.90

5.70

5.07

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Call effectiveness SMS effectiveness Barge-in Recognition Number dictation

Non adaptive Adaptive

Results (cont.)

• Performance

Comparing the mean time-on-task (in seconds) for MIMI 1 and MIMI 2 (n=30).

MIMI 1 non adaptive MIMI 2 adaptive T-test

Mean StdDev Mean StdDev p-value

T01 11 19.02 14.5 19.98 0.16

T02 10 5.22 21.5 7.34 0.00

T03 36 34.8 40.5 34.47 0.78

T04 11 6.28 20.5 7.56 0.00

T05 11 12.75 10.5 8.79 0.88

T06 10 4.29 18 7.45 0.00

T07 23 12.09 22 12.57 0.78

T08 11 9.95 20.5 18.64 0.05

T09 7 10.91 7 11.01 0.97

T10 10 5.34 16.5 38.75 0.08

Results (cont.)

• Performance

MIMI 1 non adaptive MIMI 2 adaptive T-test

Mean StdDev Mean StdDev p-value

T01 1.16 0.7 0.98 0.69 0.21

T02 0.94 0.49 0.87 0.43 0.18

T03 1.86 0.58 1.77 0.51 0.33

T04 0.99 0.45 0.95 0.43 0.68

T05 1.25 0.49 1.24 0.45 0.78

T06 1.05 0.56 0.84 0.53 0.52

T07 1.62 0.56 1.43 0.64 0.14

T08 1.13 0.5 1.02 0.4 0.28

T09 1.05 0.71 1.1 0.51 0.65

T10 0.96 0.63 0.79 0.48 0.47

Comparing the mean lateral deviation (in meters) for MIMI 1 and MIMI 2 (n=30)

Results

• Safety

5.13

5.43 5.37 5.63

5.43

5.87 5.97 6.17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Safe to make calls Safe to send SMS Safe to answer calls Safe to read SMS

Non adaptive Adaptive

Comparison of the safety ratings of non-adaptive versus the adaptive version of MIMI (n=30).

Results

• Adaptation

Comparing the adaptation of MIMI 1 and MIMI 2 (n=30).

Postponing Warning sound

MIMI 1 non

adaptive

MIMI 2

adaptive

MIMI 1 non

adaptive

MIMI 2

adaptive

Mean 4.76 5.80 4.80 4.80

Median 5.00 6.00 4.00 5.00

Mode 4.00 6.00 4.00 4.00

StdDev 1.87 1.45 1.56 1.65

p-value 0.01 1.00

Conclusion & Future work

• ICCS can be affected by usability and safety issues;

• An adaptive interface for an ICCS was designed;

• A user study compared MIMI 1 and MIMI 2 in terms of

usability and safety;

• The Adaptive interface had a positive impact on the

usability and safety of MIMI;

• Future work

– Other adaptation effects to be investigated;

– Alternative warning strategies.

Questions ?

Contact: Emails: Patrick.TchankueSielinou@nmmu.ac.za

Janet.Wesson@nmmu.ac.za

Dieter.Vogts@nmmu.ac.za

Website: www.nmmu.ac.za/cs

Tel: +27 41 504 2323

Thank you for your attention!