Distraction rated 'high' for most devices while driving

 

A University of Utah research assistant introduces a participant in new distracted driving studies to special devices designed to gauge mental distraction during road tests. Credit: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety If you think it is okay to talk to your car infotainment system or smartphone while driving or even when stopped at a red light, think again. It takes up to 27 seconds to regain full attention after issuing voice commands, University of Utah researchers found in a pair of new studies for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. One of the studies showed that it is highly distracting to use hands-free voice commands to dial phone numbers, call contacts, change music and send texts with Microsoft Cortana, Apple Siri and Google Now smartphone personal assistants, though Google Now was a bit less distracting than the others. The other study examined voice-dialing, voice-contact calling and music selection using in-vehicle information or "infotainment" systems in 10 model-year 2015 vehicles. Three were rated as moderately distracting, six as highly distracting and the system in the 2015 Mazda 6 as very highly distracting. "Just because these systems are in the car doesn't mean it's a good idea to use them while you are driving," says University of Utah psychology professor David Strayer, senior author of the two new studies. "They are very distracting, very error prone and very frustrating to use. Far too many people are dying because of distraction on the roadway, and putting another source of distraction at the fingertips of drivers is not a good idea. It's better not to use them when you are driving." The research also found that, contrary to what some may believe, practice with voice-recognition systems doesn't eliminate distraction. The studies also showed older drivers -- those most likely to buy autos with infotainment systems -- are much more distracted than younger drivers when giving voice commands. But the most surprising finding was that a driver traveling only 25 mph continues to be distracted for up to 27 seconds after disconnecting from highly distracting phone and car voice-command systems, and up to 15 seconds after disconnecting from the moderately distracting systems. The 27 seconds means a driver traveling 25 mph would cover the length of three football fields before regaining full attention. "Most people think, 'I hang up and I'm good to go,'" Strayer says. "But that's just not the case. We see it takes a surprisingly long time to come back to full attention. Even sending a short text message can cause almost another 30 seconds of impaired attention." "The voice-command technology isn't ready," says Joel Cooper, a University of Utah research assistant professor of psychology and a co-author of the new studies. "It's in the cars and is billed as a safe alternative to manual interactions with your car, but the voice systems simply don't work well enough." "Many of these systems have been put into cars with a voice-recognition system to control entertainment: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Facetime, etc. We now are trying to entertain the driver rather than keep the driver's attention on the road." In 2013, 3,154 people died and 424,000 others were injured in motor vehicle crashes on U.S. roads involving driver distraction, says the U.S. Department of Transportation. The new AAA reports urge that voice activated, in-vehicle information systems "ought not to be used indiscriminately" while driving, and advise that "caution is warranted" in smart-phone use while driving. The studies are fifth and sixth since 2013 by University of Utah psychologists and funded by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. AAA formerly was known as the American Automobile Association. Strayer and Cooper ran the studies with Utah psychology doctoral students Joanna Turrill, James Coleman and Rachel Hopman. The ratings: In-car systems and smartphone assistants are distracting The previous Utah-AAA studies devised a five-point scale: 1 mild distraction, 2 moderate distraction, 3 high distraction, 4 very high distraction and 5 maximum distraction. Those studies showed cellphone calls were moderately distracting, with scores of 2.5 for hand-held calls and 2.3 for hands-free calls. Listening to a book on tape rated mild distraction at 1.7. Listening to the radio rated 1.2. One of the new studies found mild distraction for in-vehicle information systems in the Chevy Equinox with MyLink (2.4), Buick Lacrosse with IntelliLink (2.4) and Toyota 4Runner with Entune (2.9). High distraction systems were the Ford Taurus with Sync MyFord Touch (3.1), Chevy Malibu with MyLink (3.4), Volkswagen Passat with Car-Net (3.5), Nissan Altima with Nissan Connect (3.7), Chrysler 200c with Uconnect (3.8) and Hyundai Sonata with Blue Link (3.8). The Mazda 6's Connect system rated very highly distracting (4.6). In some cases, the same voice-command system (like Chevy MyLink) got different distraction scores in different models -- something the researchers speculate is due to varying amounts of road noise and use of different in-vehicle microphones. The second new study found all three major smartphone personal assistants either highly or very highly distracting. Two scores were given to each voice-based system: A lower number for using voice commands only to make calls or change music when driving -- the same tasks done with the in-car systems -- and a higher number that also included using smartphones to send texts by voice commands. Google Now rated highly distracting (3.0, 3.3), as did Apple Siri (3.4, 3.7), while Microsoft Cortana rated highly to very highly distracting (3.8, 4.1). Strayer says of both in-car information systems and smartphone personal assistants: "These systems are often very difficult to use, especially if you're just trying to entertain yourself. ... The vast majority of people we tested ended up being frustrated by the complexity and error-prone nature of the systems." How the studies were conducted The new studies were conducted with participants driving the various cars at 25 mph or less around a 2.7-mile route in Salt Lake City's Avenues neighborhood as they used voice-commands to dial numbers, call contacts and tune the radio using in-car systems, and to dial numbers, call contacts, choose music and text using smartphones. With researchers in the car, the drivers were tested for the extent of their distraction, even as they kept their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel after hitting a voice-command system button. A head-mounted LED light flashed red every three to five seconds at the edge of a driver's left eye. Drivers pressed a switch attached to a thumb when they saw the light. The researchers measured how voice interactions with a car or smartphone reduced drivers' reaction times and accuracy at seeing the flashing lights. The drivers also completed surveys about their perceived level of distraction, and videos measured how much of the time they kept their eyes on the road, mirrors or dashboard. The in-vehicle information system study included 257 people and the smartphone personal assistant study had 65 participants, all with no at-fault accidents during the past five years. Unlike the 2013 and 2014 studies, which included primarily people in their 20s, subjects in the new studies ranged in age from 21 to 70. In the in-car information system study, the researchers did an initial test on the subjects, then let them take the cars home for five days to practice using the systems. Then they returned for reassessment of the mental workload from using the systems. Strayer personally doesn't even make hands-free cellphone calls while driving. He advises against using voice commands system while driving for purposes such as voice dialing, voice contact calling, surfing the Internet, sending email and text messages, reading email, tweeting or updating Facebook. "If you are going to use these systems, use them to support the primary task of driving -- like for navigation or to change the radio or temperature -- and keep the interaction short." Story Source: The above post is reprinted from materials provided by University of Utah.Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151022094515.htm

Talking to your car is often distracting

 

"Even though your car may be configured to support social media, texting and phone calls, it doesn't mean it is safe to do so," says University of Utah psychology professor and study leader David Strayer. "The primary task should be driving. Things that take your attention away make you a poor driver and make the roads less safe."

The studies were sponsored by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, an arm of the nonprofit AAA, formerly known as the American Automobile Association.

-- One new study found that using your voice to make phone calls and tune the radio with Chevrolet's MyLink system distracted drivers the most. Mercedes' COMMAND system, MyFord Touch and Chrysler's UConnect were better, but all diverted attention more than a cell phone conversation. The least distracting system was Toyota's Entune, which took as much attention as listening to a book on tape, followed by Hyundai's Blue Link, which was a bit more distracting, but less than talking with a passenger.

-- In the other new study, using Apple iPhone's Siri to send and receive texts, post to Facebook and Twitter and use a calendar was more distracting than any other voice-activated technology -- even when it was modified for use as a hands-free, eyes-free device so drivers kept their hands on the wheel and eyes on the road.

AAA and Strayer urge drivers to minimize use of distracting in-vehicle technology. The new studies provide recommendations to automakers to help make future voice-controlled systems so they are "simpler and more accurate" in responding to voice commands, and thus less distracting, Strayer says.

"We are concerned we may be making distraction problems worse by going to voice-activated technology, especially if it's not easy to use," Strayer says. "But the reality is these systems are here to stay. Given that, let's make the technology as safe as possible with the goal of making it no more distracting than listening to the radio."

How the New Studies Were Performed

The studies involved 162 University of Utah students and other volunteers who performed a series of tasks (such as calling, texting, tuning the radio) using various voice-based, interactive technologies while they looked at a computer screen, operated a driving simulator and drove real cars on a loop through Salt Lake City's Avenues district.

In the real cars, drivers were accompanied by at least one researcher responsible for data collection and for safety spotting to prevent them from mishaps such as running stop signs. Video cameras recorded their actions and the road ahead.

The findings follow a 2013 AAA-University of Utah study that showed using hands-free devices to talk, text or send e-mail is distracting and risky for motorists.

The 2013 study established a five-point scale for measuring driver distractions: 1 represents the mental workload of driving without distraction, while 5 represents severe distraction caused when drivers performed a complex math-and-memorization test.

The 2013 study gave distraction ratings (from least to most distracting) of 1.21 for listening to the radio, 1.75 for listening to a book on tape, 2.27 for using a hands-free cell phone, 2.33 for talking with a passenger, 2.45 for using a hand-held cell phone and 3.06 for using a speech-to-text system that recognized commands perfectly to play and compose emails and texts.

Rating Road Distractions

Both of the new studies used the same scale. One new study scored common voice interactions with specific infotainment systems in some of the most common auto brands on U.S. roads. From least distracting to most distracting:

-- 1.7 for Toyota's Entune.

-- 2.2 for Hyundai's Blue Link Telematics System.

-- 2.7 for Chrysler's UConnect System.

-- 3.0 for the Ford SYNC with MyFord Touch system.

-- 3.1 for Mercedes' COMMAND system.

-- 3.7 for Chevrolet's MyLink.

The Toyota and Hyundai systems show "these systems can be designed so they aren't very distracting to drivers," Strayer says.

The other new study rated distractions from eight different ways of interacting with a car by voice command. The ratings, from least to most distracting, were:

-- 1.88 to issue simple voice commands, like turn on heat or tune the radio.

-- 2.04 to ask a natural, recorded voice to play emails and texts.

-- 2.31 to ask a computerized voice to play emails and texts.

-- 2.83 to use an error-free, voice menu system to navigate to destinations.

-- 3.06 to ask a computerized voice to play and compose emails and texts.

-- 3.09 to ask a natural, recorded voice to play and compose emails and texts.

-- 3.67 to use an error-prone voice-based menu system to navigate to destinations.

-- 4.14 to use Apple's Siri (version iOS 7) to navigate, send and receiving texts, make Facebook and Twitter posts and use the calendar without handling or looking at the phone itself.

Strayer's tests of Siri allowed drivers -- wearing lapel microphones -- to interact with Siri as a researcher in the back seat actually manipulated the phone. "We wanted to focus on mental distraction or workload" so there was no additional distraction from looking at or handling an iPhone, Strayer says. He adds that Apple officials told him Siri learns and gets more accurate over time.

"Some of the most advanced technology, such as Siri, can lead to high levels of distraction when you're trying to drive," Strayer adds. "When these systems become more complex, like sending text messages or posting to Facebook, it pushes the workloads to pretty high levels and may be dangerous while driving."

The research revealed that the more distracting voice-based systems were that way because they were too complex, mentally demanding, difficult to use and often inaccurate at recognizing voice commands.

"It was to the point where drivers [in the experiments] were cursing the systems out, especially the ones that were difficult and wouldn't do what they want," Strayer says. "If you want to buy one of these cars, make sure you can actually use the voice-based technology before you leave the lot. Some of these systems are very difficult to use."

He adds: "We need to be smart about how we use this technology. Just because it's there doesn't mean we should use it. In some situations, it can be sufficiently distracting that it can impair road safety."

Strayer conducted the studies with these University of Utah psychologists: Research assistant professor Joel Cooper, Ph.D. students Jonna Turrill and James Coleman, and research assistants Emily Ortiz and Hailey Ingebretsen.

Imperfect Hands-Free Systems Causing Potentially-Unsafe Driver Distractions; AAA Urges Manufacturers to Focus on Accuracy and Usability to Reduce Cognitive Distraction

With three out of four drivers believing that hands-free technology is safe to use, Americans may be surprised to learn that these popular new vehicle features may actually increase mental distraction, according to new research by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. This research can serve as guidance to manufacturers who increasingly market hands-free systems as safety features. The good news for consumers is that it is possible to design hands-free technologies that are less cognitively distracting, according to the research.

The results, which build on the first phase of the Foundation's research conducted last year, suggest that developers can improve the safety of their products by making them less complicated, more accurate and generally easier to use -- a point AAA hopes to use in working with manufacturers to make hands-free technologies as safe as possible for consumers. While manufacturers continue their efforts to develop and refine systems that reduce distractions, AAA encourages drivers to minimize cognitive distraction by limiting the use of most voice-based technologies.

"We already know that drivers can miss stop signs, pedestrians and other cars while using voice technologies because their minds are not fully focused on the road ahead," said Bob Darbelnet, chief executive officer of AAA. "We now understand that current shortcomings in these products, intended as safety features, may unintentionally cause greater levels of cognitive distraction."

Using instrumented test vehicles, heart-rate monitors and other equipment designed to measure reaction times, Dr. David Strayer and researchers from the University of Utah evaluated and ranked common voice-activated interactions based on the level of cognitive distraction generated. The team used a five-category rating system, which they created in 2013, similar to that used for hurricanes. The results show:

-- The accuracy of voice recognition software significantly influences the rate of distraction. Systems with low accuracy and reliability generated a high level (category 3) of distraction.

-- Composing text messages and emails using in-vehicle technologies (category 3) was more distracting than using these systems to listen to messages (category 2).

-- The quality of the systems' voice had no impact on distraction levels

-- listening to a natural or synthetic voice both rated as a category 2 level of distraction.

The study also separately assessed Apple's Siri (version iOS 7) using insight obtained from Apple about Siri's functionality at the time the research was conducted. Researchers used the same metrics to measure a broader range of tasks including using social media, sending texts and updating calendars. The research uncovered that hands- and eyes-free use of Apple's Siri generated a relatively high category 4 level of mental distraction.

To put all of this year's findings in context, last year's research revealed that listening to the radio rated as a category 1 distraction; talking on a hand-held or hands-free cell phone resulted in a category 2 distraction; and using an error-free speech-to-text system to listen to and compose emails or texts was a category 3 distraction.

"Technologies used in the car that rely on voice communications may have unintended consequences that adversely affect road safety," said Peter Kissinger, President and CEO of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. "The level of distraction and the impact on safety can vary tremendously based on the task or the system the driver is using."

To assess "real-world" impact, Dr. Joel Cooper with Precision Driving Research evaluated the two most common voice-based interactions in which drivers engage -- changing radio stations and voice dialing -- with the actual voice-activated systems found in six different automakers' vehicles. On the five point scale, Toyota's Entune® system garnered the lowest cognitive distraction ranking (at 1.7), which is similar to listening to an audio book. In comparison, the Chevrolet MyLink® resulted in a high level of cognitive distraction (rating of 3.7). Other systems tested included the Hyundai Blue Link (rating 2.2), the Chrysler Uconnect™ (rating 2.7), Ford SYNC with MyFord Touch® (rating 3.0) and the Mercedes COMAND® (rating 3.1).

"It is clear that not all voice systems are created equal, and today's imperfect systems can lead to driver distraction," continued Darbelnet. "AAA is confident that it will be possible to make safer systems in the future."

This phase of the research highlights the variability in demands across all the systems tested. AAA is calling for developers to address key contributing factors to mental distraction including complexity, accuracy and time on task with the goal of making systems that are no more demanding than listening to the radio or an audiobook. AAA also plans to use the findings to continue a dialogue with policy makers, safety advocates and manufacturers.

To view the full report, "Measuring Cognitive Distraction in the Vehicle II: Assessing In-Vehicle Voice-based Interactive Technologies," and other materials on distracted driving, visit NewsRoom.AAA.com. This study builds upon groundbreaking research conducted last year, which found that drivers can be dangerously distracted even if their eyes are on the road and their hands are on the wheel. AAA promoted the study in the release: Think You Know All About Distracted Driving? Think Again, Says AAA.

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by University of Utah. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.