Objective: This study examined the effectiveness of rear-end collision warnings presented in different sensory modalities while drivers were engaged in cell phone conversations in a driving simulator. Background: Tactile and auditory collision warnings have been shown to improve braking response time (RT) in rear-end collision situations. However, it is not clear how effective these warnings are when the driver is engaged in attentionally demanding secondary tasks, such as talking on a cell phone. Method: Sixteen participants in a driving simulator experienced three collision warning conditions (none, tactile, and auditory) in three conversation conditions (none, simple hands free, complex hands free). Driver RT was captured from warning onset to brake initiation (WON2B). Results: WON2B times for auditory warnings were significantly larger for simple conversations compared with no conversation (+148 ms), whereas there was no significant difference between these conditions for tactile warnings (+53 ms). For complex conversations, WON2B times for both tactile (+146 ms) and auditory warnings (+221 ms) were significantly larger than during no conversation. During complex conversations, tactile warnings produced significantly shorter WON2B times than no warning (—141 ms). Conclusion: Tactile warnings are more effective than auditory warnings during both simple and complex conversations. Application: These results indicate that tactile rear-end collision warnings have the potential to offset some of the driving impairments caused by cell phone conversations.
Abe, G., & Richardson, J. (2005). The influence of alarm timing on braking response and driver trust in low speed driving. Safety Science, 43(9), 639-654.
2.
Alm, H., & Nilsson, L. (1995). The effects of a mobile telephone task on driver behavior in a car following situation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 27, 707-715.
3.
Belz, S.M., Robinson, G.S., & Casali, J.G. (1999). A new class of auditory warning signals for complex systems: Auditory icons. Human Factors, 41, 608-618.
4.
Bhatia, P. (2003). Vehicle technologies to improve performance and safety (UCTC Publication No. 622). Berkeley: University of California.
5.
Bolanowski, S.J., Gescheider, G.A., Verrillo, R.T., & Checkosky, C.M. (1988). Four channels mediate the mechanical aspects of touch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 1680-1694.
6.
Dingus, T.A., Klauser, S.G., Neale, V.L., Petersen, A., Lee, S.E., Sudweeks, J., Perez, M.A., Hankey, J., Ramsey, D., Gupta, S., Bucher, C., Doerzaph, Z.R., Jermeland, J., & Knipling, R.R. (2006). The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Phase II: Results of the 100-car field experiment (Report No. DOT HS 810593). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
7.
Godthelp, J., & Schuman, J. (1993). Intelligent accelerator: An element of driver support. In A. M. Parkes & S. Frazen (Eds.), Driving future vehicles (pp. 265-275). London: Taylor & Francis.
8.
Goldstein, E.B. (2006). Sensation and perception. Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth.
9.
Hirst, S., & Graham, R. (1997). The format and presentation of collision warnings . In Y. I. Noy (Ed.), Ergonomics and safety of intelligent driver interfaces (pp. 203-219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
Ho, C., Reed, N., & Spence, C. (2006). Assessing the effectiveness of "intuitive" vibrotactile warning signals in preventing front-to-rear-end collisions in a driving simulator . Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38, 989-997.
11.
Ho, C., Reed, N., & Spence, C. (2007). Multisensory in-car warning signals for collision avoidance. Human Factors, 49, 1107-1114.
12.
Ho, C., Tan, H.Z., & Spence, C. (2005). Using spatial vibrotactile cues to direct visual attention in driving scenes. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8(6), 397-412.
13.
Horrey, W.J., & Wickens, C.D. (2006). Examining the impact of cell phone conversations on driving using meta-analytic techniques. Human Factors, 48, 196-205.
14.
Knipling, R.R., Mironer, M., Hendriks, D.L., Tijerina, L., Everson, J., Allen, J.C., & Wilson, C. (1993). Assessment of IVHS countermeasures for collision avoidance: Rear-end crashes (DOT HS 807 995). Washington. DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration .
15.
Lee, D.N. (1976). A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision. Perception, 5, 437-459.
16.
Lee, J.D., Hoffman, J.D., & Hayes, E. (2004). Collision warning design to mitigate driver distraction . In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 6, 65-72.
17.
Lee, J.D., McGehee, D.V., Brown, T.L., & Reyes, M.L. (2002). Collision warning timing, driver distraction, and driver response to imminent rear-end collisions in a high-fidelity driving simulator. Human Factors, 44, 314-334.
18.
McGehee, D.V., LeBlanc, D.J., Kiefer, R.J., & Salinger, J. (2002). Human factors in forward collision warning systems: Operating characteristics and user interface requirements (No. J2400). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
19.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2006). Traffic safety facts 2006: A compilation of motor vehicle crash data from the fatality analysis reporting system and the general estimates system (NHTSA Publication No. DOT- HS-810-818). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
20.
Patten, C.J.D., Kircher, A., Ostlund, J., & Nilsson, L. (2004). Using mobile telephones: Cognitive workload and attention resource allocation. Accident Analysis & Prevention , 36, 341-350.
21.
Scott, J.J., & Gray, R. (2008). Comparison of visual, auditory and tactile warnings for rear-end collision prevention in simulated driving. Human Factors, 50, 264-275.
22.
Spence, C., & Driver, J. (1997). Cross-modal links in attention between audition, vision, and touch: Implications for interface design. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 1, 351-373.
23.
Strayer, D.L., & F.A. Drews (2007). Cell-phone-induced driver distraction. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 128-131.
24.
Van Erp, J.B.F. (2005). Presenting directions with a vibrotactile torso display. Ergonomics, 48, 302-313.
25.
Wickens, C.D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance (pp. 239- 254). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
