Abstract
This research introduces IVIPAT: an in-vehicle information processing analysis tool. The tool consists of a taxonomy (e.g., filter, search, interpret, monitor, decide) that can be used to carry out a task analysis with focus on information processing. This taxonomy is combined with a subjective mental demand rating scale to identify the intensity of each information processing step. The taxonomy is evaluated and revised based on the feedback of N = 15 practitioners in Study 1 and then applied by a second sample of N = 15 practitioners in Study 2. Results illustrate the added value of the tool: through the rating, user interaction flow variants with differences regarding the mental demand can be identified. In this case, text input via rotary knob was rated as significantly more demanding than text input via handwriting (p < .01, df = 14) or keyboard (p < .05, df = 14). When analyzing information processing during the three user interaction flows, the analysts assigned a total of 359 mental operators with the help of the taxonomy. Results show that the increased load while using the rotary knob could be explained by the necessary interpretation of the direction of rotation, the tracking of the visual highlight during rotation and the overall increased number of information processing steps during interaction. Overall, the focus on information processing and applicability for practitioners distinguish the presented approach from previous ones, like keystroke-level models and cognitive architectures. To facilitate the application, survey materials and analysis examples are included.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data is available on request, but from our point not needed to use the developed method in this paper. For using this method, there are several materials provided as desribed in the text.
Notes
Driving simulator study with N = 31 subjects conducted in 2018. Critical tracking task as primary task and introduced IVIS tasks as secondary task. Introduced mental demand rating as dependent measure.
References
Anderson JR, Bothell D, Lebiere C, Matessa M (1998) An integrated theory of list memory. J Memory Lang 38(4):341–380. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2553
Blanco M, Biever WJ, Gallagher JP, Dingus TA (2006) The impact of secondary task cognitive processing demand on driving performance. Accid Anal Prev 38(5):895–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2006.02.015
Card SK, Moran TP, Newell A (1980) The keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems. Commun ACM 23(7):396–410. https://doi.org/10.1145/358886.358895
Card SK, Moran TP, Newell A (1983) The psychology of human-computer interaction. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Frison AK, Wintersberger P, Oberhofer A, Riener A (2019) ATHENA: supporting UX of conditionally automated driving with natural language reliability displays. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications: Adjunct Proceedings, p. 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1145/3349263.3351312
Green P (2008) Driver interface/HMI standards to minimize driver distraction/overload. SAE Int. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420007497.ch25
Green P, Koca E, Brennan-Carey C (2023) Estimates of in-vehicle task element times for usability and distraction evaluations. No. 2023–01–0789. SAE Technical Paper. https://doi.org/10.4271/2023-01-0789
Green P (1999) Estimating compliance with the 15- second rule for driver-interface usability and safety. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting (CD-ROM). Santa Monica, California: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129904301809
Harvey C, Stanton NA, Pickering CA, McDonald M, Zheng P (2011) A usability evaluation toolkit for in-vehicle information systems (IVISs). Appl Ergon 42(4):563–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.09.013
Hoffman RR, Shadbolt NR, Burton AM, Klein G (1995) Eliciting knowledge from experts: a methodological analysis. Org Behav Hum Decis Process 62(2):129–158. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1039
John BE, Prevas K, Salvucci DD, Koedinger K (2004) Predictive human performance modeling made easy. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p. 455–462. https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985750
Kantowitz BH (1989) The role of human information processing models in system development. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, vol. 33, no. 16, p. 1059–1063. Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193128903301605
Kieras D (1997) A guide to GOMS model usability evaluation using NGOMSL. Handbook of human-computer interaction. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 733–766
Koca E, Green P (2022) Databases for estimating task element times: an overview. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 66, No. 1, p. 1591–1595. Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181322661314
Lee JD, Morgan J, Wheeler WA, Hulse MC, Dingus TA (1997) Development of human factors guidelines for advanced traveler information systems (ATIS) and commercial vehicle operations (CVO): description of ATIS/CVO functions (FHWA-RD-95-201). Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC
Lilburne CM, Hassall ME (2019) Modifications to the Decision Ladder to match frontline workers’ critical decision making. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 63, No. 1, p. 347–351. Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631329
Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD (2016) Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res 26(13):1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
Mayring P (2014) Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173
Miller RB (1974) A method for determining task strategies (Technical Report AFHRL-TR-74-26). American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.1037/e447002004-001
Miller RB (1971) Development of a taxonomy of human performance: design of a systems task vocabulary (Technical Report AIR-72/6/2053–3/71-TRII). Silver Spring, MD: American Institutes for Research. https://doi.org/10.21236/ad0736195
Nielsen J (1992) Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 373–380. https://doi.org/10.1145/142750.142834
Pettitt M, Burnett G, Stevens A (2007) An extended KLM for predicting the visual demand of in-vehicle information systems. In: Contemporary Ergonomics 2007, p. 272–277. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315106595-43
Purucker C, Naujoks F, Prill A, Neukum A (2017) Evaluating distraction of in-vehicle information systems while driving by predicting total eyes-off-road times with keystroke level modeling. Appl Ergon 58:543–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.04.012
Rasmussen J (1983) Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 3:257–266. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmc.1983.6313160
Rasmussen J (1986) A framework for cognitive task analysis in systems design. Intelligent decision support in process environments. Springer, Berlin, pp 175–196
Regan MA, Strayer DL (2014) Towards an understanding of driver inattention: taxonomy and theory. Ann Adv Autom Med 58:5–13
Ritter FE, Tehranchi F, Oury JD (2019) ACT-R: a cognitive architecture for modeling cognition. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 10(3):e1488. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1488
Rümelin S, Gabler T, Bellenbaum J (2017) Clicks are in the air: how to support the interaction with floating objects through ultrasonic feedback. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, p. 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1145/3122986.3123010
Salvucci DD, Zuber M, Beregovaia E, Markley D (2005) Distract-R: rapid prototyping and evaluation of in-vehicle interfaces. In: Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI 2005 Conference Proceedings, p. 581–589. New York: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055052
Salvucci DD (2005) Modeling tools for predicting driver distraction. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 49, No. 12, p. 1149–1152. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120504901211
Schneegaß S, Pfleging B, Kern D, Schmidt A (2011) Support for modeling interaction with automotive user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, p. 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1145/2381416.2381428
Strayer DL, Cooper JM, Goethe RM, McCarty MM, Getty D, Biondi F (2017) Visual and cognitive demands of using in-vehicle infotainment systems. Cogn Res 4:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0166-3
von Janczewski N, Kraus J, Engeln A, Baumann M (2022) A subjective one-item measure based on NASA-TLX to assess cognitive workload in driver-vehicle interaction. Transp Res F 86:210–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2022.02.012
Wickens CD, Flach JM (1988) Information processing. Human factors in aviation. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 111–155
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: Nikolai von Janczewski; Methodology: Nikolai von Janczewski; Formal analysis and investigation: Nikolai von Janczewski; Writing - original draft preparation: Nikolai von Janczewski; Writing - review and editing: Nikolai von Janczewski, Johannes Kraus; Supervision: Arnd Engeln, Martin Baumann
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary file3 (MP4 5030 KB)
Supplementary file4 (MP4 2238 KB)
Supplementary file5 (MP4 2411 KB)
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
von Janczewski, N., Kraus, J., Engeln, A. et al. IVIPAT: an in-vehicle information processing analysis tool to optimize user interaction flows. Cogn Tech Work 26, 247–265 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-024-00752-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-024-00752-y