Comparing the demands of destination entry using Google Glass and the Samsung Galaxy S4 during simulated driving

• Published in: Applied ergonomics Vol. 58; pp. 25 - 34
• Main Authors: Beckers, Niek, Schreiner, Sam, Bertrand, Pierre, Mehler, Bruce, Reimer, Bryan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.01.2017; Elsevier Science Ltd
• Subjects: Adult; Attention; Automotive engineering; Computer Simulation; Detection response task; Distracted Driving - psychology; Distraction; Eye Movements; Female; Geographic Information Systems; Human factors research; Humans; Interactive computer systems; Male; Reaction Time; Smartphone; Smartphones; Task Performance and Analysis; Time Factors; Touch; Voice; Voice response technology; Voice simulation; Wearable computers; Workload; Workload - psychology; Young Adult; Distraction; Detection response task; Attention; Workload
• ISSN: 0003-6870; 1872-9126
• DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2016.05.005

The relative impact of using a Google Glass based voice interface to enter a destination address compared to voice and touch-entry methods using a handheld Samsung Galaxy S4 smartphone was assessed in a driving simulator. Voice entry (Google Glass and Samsung) had lower subjective workload ratings, lower standard deviation of lateral lane position, shorter task durations, faster remote Detection Response Task (DRT) reaction times, lower DRT miss rates, and resulted in less time glancing off-road than the primary visual-manual interaction with the Samsung Touch interface. Comparing voice entry methods, using Google Glass took less time, while glance metrics and reaction time to DRT events responded to were similar. In contrast, DRT miss rate was higher for Google Glass, suggesting that drivers may be under increased distraction levels but for a shorter period of time; whether one or the other equates to an overall safer driving experience is an open question. •Google Glass was compared to voice and touch-entry on a smartphone during driving.•As expected, all three interactions showed some level of demand compared to “just driving”.•Voice-based interaction with both devices had less impact than the smartphone touch interface.•In the voice-based interaction, Google Glass induced higher DRT miss-rates but for less time.