감성과학 (Science of Emotion and Sensibility)

  • 제21권2호
  • /
  • Pages.29-42
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 1226-8593(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2383-613X(eISSN)
한국감성과학회 (Korean Society for Emotion and Sensibility)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

운전 중 IVIS 조작 상황에서 Motor Cue와 과제의 난이도가 과제 전환과 운전 주행에 미치는 영향

Effect of Motor Cues and Secondary Task Complexity on Driving Performance and Task Switching While Driving

  • 유은현 (연세대학교 인지과학협동과정) ;
  • 한광희 (연세대학교 심리학과)
  • 투고 : 2018.03.19
  • 심사 : 2018.04.20
  • 발행 : 2018.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

최근 자동차와 IT기술의 융합으로 차량 내 인포테인먼트 시스템이 운전자에게 편의 및 오락 기능을 제공하며 역할이 중요해지고 있다. 하지만 운전과 인포테인먼트 시스템을 조작하는 것은 동시에 시각 리소스를 요구하는 과제로 과제를 전환하며 수행해야 한다. 따라서 본 연구는 운전 중 인포테인먼트 시스템 조작 상황에서 조작 과제의 난이도와 motor cue가 과제 전환과 운전 주행능력에 미치는 영향과 함께, motor cue의 효과가 조작 과제의 난이도 수준에 따라 차이가 있는지 보고자 하였다. motor cue와 조작 과제 난이도의 효과를 살펴보기 위해 반복되는 숫자가 청크 단위와 일치하는지에 따라 두 종류의 번호를 사용하였으며, 터치 키의 크기로 난이도 수준을 조절했다. 실험에서 참가자들은 모의 주행을 하며 스크린에 번호를 입력하도록 지시받았고, 과제 수행 중 번호 입력시간, 차선 유지능력, 숫자 키 입력 시간 간격과 핸들 움직임을 측정했다. 그 결과, 난이도 수준에 따라 운전 주행 능력과[F(1, 26) = 8.521, p < .001], 번호 입력 시간의 차이가 유의미했고[F(1, 26) = 35.372, p < .0001], 번호 종류에 따른 차이는 나타나지 않았다. 하지만 Incongruent 번호 입력 시, 청크로 구분된 두 숫자를 입력하는 시간의 간격과 핸들 움직임이 크게 증가하였다. 이는 반복된 숫자가 청크로 구분되어도 청크를 무시하고 한 번에 입력하였음을 나타낸다. 종합하면, 다중 과제 상황에서 청크 단위는 motor cue에 의해 상쇄되며 과제 전환 시점을 결정하는 데에 motor cue의 효과가 있음을 시사한다.

As information technology is more actively incorporated into automobiles, the role of IVIS (In-Vehicle Infotainment System) is becoming increasingly important for providing convenience and entertainment for drivers. However, using the infotainment systems while driving requires task switching and attending to two visual resources simultaneously. We simulated a setting where participants have to drive while interacting with the infotainment system and examined how task difficulty and motor cues impact driver task-switching and driving performance, specifically whether the effects of motor cues differ depending on task difficulty. For the infotainment display, we used two types of number array depending on the congruency between the digit repetition and the chunking unit, while task difficulty was manipulated by the size of the touch-keys. Participants were instructed to dial two numbers on the screen while we recorded the dialing time, lateral position, inter-key press intervals, and steering wheel control. We found that dialing time and lateral position were affected by task difficulty, while the type of number array had no effect. However, the inter-key press intervals between chunked numbers and steering wheel movement both increased when participants had to use an incongruent number array, which indicates that, if number digits are repeated, chunking is ignored by the drivers. Our findings indicate that, in a dual-task condition, motor cues offset the effect of chunking and can effectively signal the timing for task switching.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Adler, R. F., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2015). The effects of task difficulty and multitasking on performance. Interacting with Computers, 27(4), 430-439. DOI: 10.1093/iwc/iwu005
  2. Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2002). Memory for goals: An activation-based model. Cognitive Science, 26(1), 39-83. DOI: 10.1016/S0364-0213(01)00058-1
  3. Bailey, B. P., & Iqbal, S. T. (2008). Understanding changes in mental workload during execution of goal-directed tasks and its application for interruption management. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 14(4), 21. DOI: 10.1145/1314683.1314689
  4. Burnett, G. E., Large, D. R., Lawson, G., De-Kremer, S., & Skrypchuk, L. (2013). A comparison of resistive and capacitive touchscreens for use within vehicles. Advances in Transportation Studies, 31, 5-16. DOI: 10.4399/97888548663241
  5. Cantin, V., Lavalliere, M., Simoneau, M., & Teasdale, N. (2009). Mental workload when driving in a simulator: Effects of age and driving complexity. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(4), 763-771. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2009.03.019
  6. Chang, T., & Hsiao, W. (2011). Consumers automotive purchase decisions: the significance of vehiclebased infotainment systems. African Journal of Business Management, 5(11), 4152-4163. DOI: 10.5897/AJBM10.480
  7. Crundall, E., Large, D. R., & Burnett, G. (2016). A driving simulator study to explore the effects of text size on the visual demand of in-vehicle displays. Displays, 43, 23-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.displa.2016.05.003
  8. Dobres, J., Reimer, B., Mehler, B., Foley, J., Ebe, K., Seppelt, B., & Angell,L. (2016). The Influence of Driver's Age on Glance Allocations during Single-Task Driving and Voice vs. Visual-Manual Radio Tuning (No.2016-01-1445). SAE Technical Paper. DOI: 10.4271/2016-01-1445
  9. Duggan, G. B., Johnson, H., & Sorli, P. (2013). Interleaving tasks to improve performance: Users maximise the marginal rate of return. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(5), 533-550. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.01.001
  10. Gillie, T., & Broadbent, D. (1989). What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychological Research, 50(4), 243-250. DOI: 10.1007/BF00309260
  11. Hodgetts, H. M., & Jones, D. M. (2006). Interruption of the Tower of London task: support for a goalactivation approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1), 103. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.103
  12. Horberry, T. (1998). Bridge strike reduction: the design and evaluation of visual warnings. Doctoral dissertation. University of Derby.
  13. Horberry, T., Anderson, J., Regan, M. A., Triggs, T. J., & Brown, J. (2006). Driver distraction: The effects of concurrent in-vehicle tasks, road environment complexity and age on driving performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38(1), 185-191. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2005.09.007
  14. Iqbal, S. T., Adamczyk, P. D., Zheng, X. S., & Bailey, B. P. (2005). Towards an index of opportunity: understanding changes in mental workload during task execution. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 311-320). ACM. DOI: 10.1145/1054972.1055016
  15. Irune, A., Burnett, G.E., 2007. Locating in Car Controls: Predicting the Effects of Varying Design Layout. Advances in Transportation Studies, pp. 25e32.
  16. Janssen, C. P., Brumby, D. P., & Garnett, R. (2010). Natural break points: Utilizing motor cues when multitasking. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 482-486). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. DOI: 10.1177/154193121005400444
  17. Janssen, C. P., Brumby, D. P., Dowell, J., Chater, N., & Howes, A. (2011). Identifying optimum performance trade-offs using a cognitively bounded rational analysis model of discretionary task interleaving. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(1), 123-139. DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01125.x
  18. Janssen, C. P., Brumby, D. P., & Garnett, R. (2012). Natural break points: the influence of priorities and cognitive and motor cues on dual-task interleaving. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 6(1), 5-29. DOI: 10.1177/1555343411432339
  19. Kim, H., Kwon, S., Heo, J., Lee, H., & Chung, M. K. (2014). The effect of touch-key size on the usability of In-Vehicle Information Systems and driving safety during simulated driving. Applied Ergonomics, 45(3), 379-388. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2013.05.006
  20. Kim, H. Y., Choi, J., & Choi, J. (2017) An Experimental Study on the Prototype Design of Car Infotainment Display-Interaction modes of navigation and music service screens (자동차 인포테인먼트 디스플레이의 프로토타입 디자인 실험 연구-내비게이션과 음원 서비스스크린의 인터랙션 방식을 중심으로-), Journal of Digital Convergence, 16(2), 239-251.
  21. Kujala, T. (2013). Browsing the information highway while driving: three in-vehicle touch screen scrolling methods and driver distraction. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17(5), 815-823. DOI: 10.1007/s00779-012-0517-2
  22. Kujala, T., & Salvucci, D. D. (2015). Modeling visual sampling on in-car displays: The challenge of predicting safety-critical lapses of control. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 79, 66-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.02.009
  23. Lee, J. Y., Gibson, M., & Lee, J. D. (2015). Secondary task boundaries influence drivers' glance durations. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 273-280). ACM. DOI: 10.1145/2799250.2799269
  24. Loehmann, S., Knobel, M., Lamara, M., & Butz, A. (2013). Culturally independent gestures for in-car interactions. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 538-545). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. DOI: 10.1007%2F978-3-642-40477-1
  25. May, K., Gable, T. M., Wu, X., Sardesai, R. R., & Walker, B. N. (2016). Choosing the Right Air Gesture: Impacts of Menu Length and Air Gesture Type on Driver Workload. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 69-74). ACM. DOI: 10.1145/3004323.3004330
  26. Mehler, B., Kidd, D., Reimer, B., Reagan, I., Dobres, J. & McCartt, A. (2016). Multi-modal assessment of on-road demand of voice and manual phonecalling and voice navigation entry across two embedded vehicle systems. Ergonomics, 59(3), 344-367. DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2015.1081412
  27. Mitsopoulos-Rubens, E., Trotter, M. J., & Lenne, M. G. (2011). Effects on driving performance of interacting with an in-vehicle music player: A comparison of three interface layout concepts for information presentation. Applied Ergonomics, 42(4), 583-591. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2010.08.017
  28. Mun, K., Choi, J., Kang, D., Bang, Y., Kim, H., Lee, S., Yang, J., Kim, J., Choi, M., Ji, D., Min, B., Chung, S., & Tack, G. (2010) The Effects of Secondary Task on Driving Performance - Control of Vehicle and Analysis of Motion signal. (동시과제가 운전 수행 능력에 미치는 영향-차량 통제 및 동작신호 해석을 중심으로-) Science of Emotion & Sensibility, 13(4), 613-620.
  29. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2012). Visual-manual NHTSA driver distraction guidelines for in-vehicle electronic devices. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
  30. National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2017). Distracted driving 2015. Traffic safety facts research note (Report No. DOT HS 812 381). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
  31. Ohn-Bar, E., Tran, C., & Trivedi, M. (2012). Hand gesture-based visual user interface for infotainment. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 111-115). ACM. DOI: 10.1145/2390256.2390274
  32. Owens, J. M., McLaughlin, S. B., & Sudweeks, J. (2011). Driver performance while text messaging using handheld and in-vehicle systems. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(3), 939-947. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.019
  33. Pitts, M. J., Burnett, G., Skrypchuk, L., Wellings, T., Attridge, A., & Williams, M. A. (2012). Visual-haptic feedback interaction in automotive touchscreens. Displays, 33(1), 7-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.displa.2011.09.002
  34. Rosenbaum, D. A. (2009). Human motor control. Academic press.
  35. Salvucci, D. D. (2005). A multitasking general executive for compound continuous tasks. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 457-492. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_19
  36. Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2008). Threaded cognition: an integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. Psychological Review, 115(1), 101. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.101
  37. Salvucci, D. D., & Kujala, T. (2016). Balancing structural and temporal constraints in multitasking contexts. In CogSci 2016: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ISBN 978-0-9911967-3-9. Cognitive Science Society.
  38. Shakeri, G., Williamson, J. H., & Brewster, S. (2017). Novel Multimodal Feedback Techniques for In-Car Mid-Air Gesture Interaction. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 84-93). ACM. DOI: 10.1145/3122986.3123011
  39. Stinchcombe, A., Gagnon, S., Zhang, J. J., Montembeault, P., & Bedard, M. (2011). Fluctuating attentional demand in a simulated driving assessment: the roles of age and driving complexity. Traffic Injury Prevention, 12(6), 576-587. DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2011.607479
  40. Swette, R., May, K. R., Gable, T. M., & Walker, B. N. (2013). Comparing three novel multimodal touch interfaces for infotainment menus. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 100-107). ACM. DOI: 10.1145/2516540.2516559
  41. Wickens, C. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 159-177. DOI: 10.1080 /14639220210123806 https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220210123806
  42. Williamson, A. R., Young, K. L., Navarro, J., & Lenne, M. G. (2011). Music selection using a touch screen interface: effect of auditory and visual feedback on driving and usability. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 57(4), 391-404. DOI: 10.1504/IJVD.2011.045772
  43. Yeung, N. (2010). Bottom-up influences on voluntary task switching: The elusive homunculus escapes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(2), 348. DOI: 10.1037/a0017894
  44. Young, K. L., Rudin-Brown, C. M., Patten, C., Ceci, R., & Lenne, M. G. (2014). Effects of phone type on driving and eye glance behaviour while textmessaging. Safety Science, 68, 47-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.02.018