Publication Detail
Simulation Tests of Driving Performance with Selected Route Guidance Devices
|
UCD-ITS-RP-94-25 Presentation Series |
Suggested Citation:
Srinivasan, Raghavan, Paul P. Jovanis, Chun-Zin Yang, Ryuichi Kitamura (1994) Simulation Tests of Driving Performance with Selected Route Guidance Devices. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, Presentation Series UCD-ITS-RP-94-25
Proceedings, Ergonomics and Design, 12th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Toronto, Canada. Vol. 4
Experiments were conducted in a driving simulator to evaluate distraction, workload and perceptions of four route guidance systems: paper map (base case); heads down electronic map; heads up guidance display (HUD) with heads down electronic map; and, voice guidance with heads down electronic map. User perceptions for the devices and subjective workload were measured using a variety of scales. Simulator based performance measures included: the number of navigation errors, reaction times to events in the simulated driving scene and eye fixation data obtained using an unobtrusive eye tracker. Subjective workload, user perceptions and navigation errors indicated the voice guidance/electronic map combination to be the best and the paper map to be the worst. The reaction time data also indicated the paper map to be the worst but did not cleariy indicate which electronic device was the best.
Experiments were conducted in a driving simulator to evaluate distraction, workload and perceptions of four route guidance systems: paper map (base case); heads down electronic map; heads up guidance display (HUD) with heads down electronic map; and, voice guidance with heads down electronic map. User perceptions for the devices and subjective workload were measured using a variety of scales. Simulator based performance measures included: the number of navigation errors, reaction times to events in the simulated driving scene and eye fixation data obtained using an unobtrusive eye tracker. Subjective workload, user perceptions and navigation errors indicated the voice guidance/electronic map combination to be the best and the paper map to be the worst. The reaction time data also indicated the paper map to be the worst but did not cleariy indicate which electronic device was the best.