Advanced

HMI Literature review

Varhelyi, Andras LU ; Adell, Emeli LU ; Alonso, Maria and Plaza, Juan (2006) In Report C20.52b. PReVENT Consortium
Abstract
The aim of this report is to give an overview on previous research on HMI, relevant for the concept of “Safe Speed and Safe Distance”.

The review of the literature shows that providing the driver with relevant, timely information is of paramount importance. The ideal HMI system gives the driver concise but comprehensive timely information allowing him/her sufficient time for reading and understanding and to react. Various alternatives of visual, auditory and haptic warnings for keeping safe speed and distance as well as the effects of these modes are discussed.

Auditory and haptic warnings trigger faster responses and are more effective to keep drivers out of a critical car-following zone compared to a visual display.... (More)
The aim of this report is to give an overview on previous research on HMI, relevant for the concept of “Safe Speed and Safe Distance”.

The review of the literature shows that providing the driver with relevant, timely information is of paramount importance. The ideal HMI system gives the driver concise but comprehensive timely information allowing him/her sufficient time for reading and understanding and to react. Various alternatives of visual, auditory and haptic warnings for keeping safe speed and distance as well as the effects of these modes are discussed.

Auditory and haptic warnings trigger faster responses and are more effective to keep drivers out of a critical car-following zone compared to a visual display. The longer initial response to a visual display can be explained by that the driver´s attention had to be diverted from the driving task in order to attend to the warning being presented. Also, an inattentive or distracted driver may not detect a visual collision warning display, since his/her visual attention may be directed elsewhere at the same time the warning is presented. An auditory or haptic warning is independent of where the driver is directing visual attention. Auditory warnings are perceived as more annoying than haptic warnings hence haptic warnings may be preferred over auditory warnings. Including a visual alert modality component in a warning system helps explain the auditory or haptic collision warning components to the driver. If there is a mismatch between vision and the haptic display, vision should dominate.

For the “Safe speed and safe distance” concept a multi modal warning system is recommended, consisting of the most promising visual, auditory and haptic candidate alternatives carefully selected based on driver preferences. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Book/Report
publication status
published
subject
in
Report C20.52b. PReVENT Consortium
pages
47 pages
publisher
[Publisher information missing]
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
3750f4ac-8cea-473f-b0dc-6c49ba46612c (old id 4465819)
date added to LUP
2014-06-16 11:00:10
date last changed
2016-04-16 12:04:37
@techreport{3750f4ac-8cea-473f-b0dc-6c49ba46612c,
  abstract     = {The aim of this report is to give an overview on previous research on HMI, relevant for the concept of “Safe Speed and Safe Distance”. <br/><br>
The review of the literature shows that providing the driver with relevant, timely information is of paramount importance. The ideal HMI system gives the driver concise but comprehensive timely information allowing him/her sufficient time for reading and understanding and to react. Various alternatives of visual, auditory and haptic warnings for keeping safe speed and distance as well as the effects of these modes are discussed. <br/><br>
Auditory and haptic warnings trigger faster responses and are more effective to keep drivers out of a critical car-following zone compared to a visual display. The longer initial response to a visual display can be explained by that the driver´s attention had to be diverted from the driving task in order to attend to the warning being presented. Also, an inattentive or distracted driver may not detect a visual collision warning display, since his/her visual attention may be directed elsewhere at the same time the warning is presented. An auditory or haptic warning is independent of where the driver is directing visual attention. Auditory warnings are perceived as more annoying than haptic warnings hence haptic warnings may be preferred over auditory warnings. Including a visual alert modality component in a warning system helps explain the auditory or haptic collision warning components to the driver. If there is a mismatch between vision and the haptic display, vision should dominate.<br/><br>
For the “Safe speed and safe distance” concept a multi modal warning system is recommended, consisting of the most promising visual, auditory and haptic candidate alternatives carefully selected based on driver preferences.},
  author       = {Varhelyi, Andras and Adell, Emeli and Alonso, Maria and Plaza, Juan},
  institution  = {[Publisher information missing]},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {47},
  series       = {Report C20.52b. PReVENT Consortium},
  title        = {HMI Literature review},
  year         = {2006},
}