Driver reaction time to tactile and auditory rear-end collision warnings while talking on a cell phone

Rayka Mohebbi, Robert Gray, Hong Z. Tan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

99 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)102-110
Number of pages9
JournalHuman Factors
Volume51
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2009

Fingerprint

Cell Phones
cell phone
Touch
Reaction Time
conversation
Simulators
driver
Braking
Brakes
Hand
time

Keywords

  • Attentional processes
  • Auditory displays
  • Cell phones
  • Displays and controls
  • Driver safety
  • Dual-task performance
  • Haptic
  • Hearing
  • Highway safety
  • Multimodal displays
  • Psychomotor processes
  • Reaction time
  • Touch

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Human Factors and Ergonomics
  • Applied Psychology
  • Behavioral Neuroscience

Cite this

Driver reaction time to tactile and auditory rear-end collision warnings while talking on a cell phone. / Mohebbi, Rayka; Gray, Robert; Tan, Hong Z.

In: Human Factors, Vol. 51, No. 1, 02.2009, p. 102-110.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b25942113e1d4733a0bcb241600348de,
title = "Driver reaction time to tactile and auditory rear-end collision warnings while talking on a cell phone",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Attentional processes, Auditory displays, Cell phones, Displays and controls, Driver safety, Dual-task performance, Haptic, Hearing, Highway safety, Multimodal displays, Psychomotor processes, Reaction time, Touch",
author = "Rayka Mohebbi and Robert Gray and Tan, {Hong Z.}",
year = "2009",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1177/0018720809333517",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "51",
pages = "102--110",
journal = "Human Factors",
issn = "0018-7208",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Driver reaction time to tactile and auditory rear-end collision warnings while talking on a cell phone

AU - Mohebbi, Rayka

AU - Gray, Robert

AU - Tan, Hong Z.

PY - 2009/2

Y1 - 2009/2

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Attentional processes

KW - Auditory displays

KW - Cell phones

KW - Displays and controls

KW - Driver safety

KW - Dual-task performance

KW - Haptic

KW - Hearing

KW - Highway safety

KW - Multimodal displays

KW - Psychomotor processes

KW - Reaction time

KW - Touch

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67651118078&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=67651118078&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0018720809333517

DO - 10.1177/0018720809333517

M3 - Article

VL - 51

SP - 102

EP - 110

JO - Human Factors

JF - Human Factors

SN - 0018-7208

IS - 1

ER -