Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of speech input and manual control of in-car devices while on the move

  • Published:
Personal Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Speech recognition has a number of potential advantages over traditional manual controls for the operation of in-car and other mobile devices. Two laboratory experiments aimed to test these proposed benefits, and to optimise the design of future speech interfaces. Participants carried out tasks with a phone or in-car enteratainment system, while engaged in a concurrent driving task. Speech input reduced the adverse effects of system operation on driving performance, but manual control led to faster transaction times and improved task accuracy. Explicit feedback of the recognition results was found to be necessary, with audio-only feedback leading to better task performance than combined audio-plus-visual. It is recommended that speech technology is incorporated into the user interface as a redundant alternative to manual operation. However, the importance of good human factors in the design of speech dialogues is emphasised.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alm H, Nilsson L. The effects of a mobile telephone task on driver behaviour in a car following situation. Accident Analysis and Prevention 1995; 27: 707–715

    Google Scholar 

  2. Redelmeier DA, Tibshirani RJ. Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. New England Journal of Medicine 1997; 336: 453–458

    Google Scholar 

  3. Casali SP, Williges BH, Dryden RD. Effects of recognition accuracy and vocabulary size of a speech recognition system on task performance and user acceptance. Human Factors 1990; 32: 183–196

    Google Scholar 

  4. Noyes JM, Frankish CR. Gender differences in speech recognition performance. In: Tubach JP, Mariani JJ. (eds) Proceedings of EuroSpeech '89: European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology. CEP Consultants Ltd, Edinburgh, 1989; 110–112

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dillon TW, Norcio AF, DeHaemer MJ. Spoken language interaction: effects of vocabulary size and experience on user efficiency and acceptability. In: Salvendy G, Smith MJ. (es) Human-Computer Interaction: Software and Hardware Interfaces. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCI International '93). Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1993; 140–145

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baber C, Mellor B, Graham R et al. Workload and the use of automatic speech recognition: the effects of time and resource demands. Speech Communication 1996; 20: 37–53

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hansen JHL. Analysis and compensation of speech under stress and noise for environmental robustness in speech recognition. Speech Communication 1996; 20: 151–173

    Google Scholar 

  8. Frankish CR, Jones DM, Hapeshi K. Decline in accuracy of automatic speech recognition as a function of time on task: fatigue or voice drift? International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 1992; 36:797–816

    Google Scholar 

  9. Junqua JC, Haton JP. Robustness in automatic speech recognition: fundamentals and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  10. Malkin FJ, Dennison TW. The effect of helicopter vibration on the accuracy of a voice recognition system. In: Proceedings of the National Aerospace and Electronics Conference (NAECON). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, NJ, 1986; 813–817

    Google Scholar 

  11. Zajicek MP. Evaluation of a speech driven interface. In: UK IT 1990 Conference. Southampton, 1990; 286–293

  12. Lai J, Vergo J. MedSpeak: report creation with continuous speech recognition. In: Pemberton S. (ed) Proceedings o CHI '97: Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, New York, 1997; 431–438

    Google Scholar 

  13. Stein AC, Parseghian Z, Allen RW. A simulator study of the safety implications of cellular mobile phone use. In: Proceedings of the 31 st Annual Conference of the American Association for Automotive Medicine. American Association for Automotive Medicine, Des Plaines, IL, 1987; 181–200

  14. Serafin C, Wen C, Paelke G, et al. Car phone usability: a human factors laboratory test. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Societys 37th Annual Meeting, Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA, 1993; 220–224

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gellatly AW, Dingus TA. Speech recognition and automotive applications: using speech to perform invehicle tasks. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA, 1998; 1247–1251

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jones D, Hapeshi K, Frankish C. Design guidelines for speech recognition interfaces. Applied Ergonomics 1989; 20:47–52

    Google Scholar 

  17. Noyes JM, Frankish CR. Errors and error correction in automatic speech recognition systems. Ergonomics 1994; 37:1943–1957

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schurick JM, Williges BH, Maynard JE: Use feedback requirements with automatic speech recognition. Ergonomics 1985 28:1543–1555

    Google Scholar 

  19. Popp MM, Faerber B. Feedback modality for non-transparent driver control actions: why not visually? In: Gale AG. (ed) Vision in vehicles IV. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1993; 263–270

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rabbitt P, Collins S. Age and design. Age and Cognitive Performance Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  21. Graham R, Carter C, Mellor B. The use of automatic speech recognition to reduce the interference between concurrent tasks of driving and phoning. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Proceeding. Causal Productions. Rundle Mall, Australia, 1988; 1623–1626

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hart SG, Staveland LE. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N. (eds) Human mental workload. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988; 139–183

    Google Scholar 

  23. Byers JC, Bittner AC, Hill SG. Traditional and raw task load index (TLX) correlations: are paired comparisons necessary? In: Mital A. (ed) Advances in industrial ergonomics and safety I. Taylor & Francis, London., 1989; 481–485

    Google Scholar 

  24. Graham R, Aldridle L, Carter C, et al. The design of incar speech recognition interfaces for usabity and user acceptance. In: Harris D. (ed) Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics: Volume 3. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Aldershot, 1999; 313–320

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Carter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Graham, R., Carter, C. Comparison of speech input and manual control of in-car devices while on the move. Personal Technologies 4, 155–164 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01324122

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01324122

Keywords

Navigation