TR2010-025

Evaluation of Different Speech and Touch Interfaces to In-Vehicle Music Retrieval Systems


    •  Garay-Vega, L.; Pradhan, A.K.; Weinberg, G.L.; Schmidt-Nielsen, B.K.; Harsham, B.A.; Shen, Y.; Divekar, G.; Romoser, M.; Knodler, M.; Fisher, D.L., "Evaluation of Different Speech and Touch Interfaces to In-vehicle Music Retrieval Systems", Accident Analysis & Prevention, ISSN: 0001-4575, Vol. 42, No. 3, May 2010.
      BibTeX Download PDF
      • @article{Garay-Vega2010may,
      • author = {Garay-Vega, L. and Pradhan, A.K. and Weinberg, G.L. and Schmidt-Nielsen, B.K. and Harsham, B.A. and Shen, Y. and Divekar, G. and Romoser, M. and Knodler, M. and Fisher, D.L.},
      • title = {Evaluation of Different Speech and Touch Interfaces to In-vehicle Music Retrieval Systems},
      • journal = {Accident Analysis & Prevention},
      • year = 2010,
      • volume = 42,
      • number = 3,
      • month = may,
      • issn = {0001-4575},
      • url = {http://www.merl.com/publications/TR2010-025}
      • }
  • MERL Contact:
  • Research Areas:

    Multimedia, Speech & Audio


In-vehicle music retrieval systems are becoming more and more popular. Previous studies have shown that they pose a real hazard to drivers when the interface is a tactile one which requires multiple entries and a combination of manual control and visual feedback. Voice interfaces exist as an alternative. Such interfaces can require either multiple or single conversation turns. In this study, each of 17 participants between the ages of 18 and 30 years old was asked to use three different music retrieval systems (one with a multiple entry touch interface, the iPod, one with a multiple turn voice interface, interface B, and one with a single turn voice interface, interface C)while driving through a virtual world. Measures of secondary task performance, eye behavior, vehicle control, and workload were recorded. When compared with the touch interface, the voice interfaces reduced the total time drivers spent with their eyes off the forward roadway, especially in prolonged glances, as well as both the total number of glances away from the forward roadway and the perceived workload. Furthermore, when compared with driving without a secondary task, both voice interfaces did not significantly impact hazard anticipation, the frequency of long glances away from the forward roadway, or vehicle control. The multiple turn voice interface (B) significantly increased both the time it took drivers to complete the task and workload. The implications for interface design and safety are discussed.