This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Mohebbi, R. Articles by Tan, H. Z. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Mohebbi, R. Articles by Tan, H. Z. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Driver Reaction Time to Tactile and Auditory Rear-End Collision Warnings While Talking on a Cell Phone

Arizona State University, Mesa, Arizona

Rob Gray

Arizona State University, Mesa, Arizona, robgray{at}asu.edu

Hong Z. Tan

Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

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.

Key Words: multimodal displays • cell phones • hearing • touch • haptic • driver safety • displays and controls • reaction time • psychomotor processes • dual-task performance • attentional processes • auditory displays • highway safety

Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 51, No. 1, 102-110 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0018720809333517


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?