Attention Grounding: A New Approach to IVIS Implementation Emily Wiese Cognitive Systems Lab Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering University of Iowa

Human Computer Interaction Specialty Report, November 1, 2002 In-Vehicle Information System (IVIS) n Computing Anytime, Anywhere Functions include: Cellular telephones, navigation systems, collision avoidance systems n Est. $13 billion business by 2006 n Improve productivity, satisfaction, and safety n Distraction Potential Traffic accidents cause 42,000 deaths and $150 billion in costs each year 13% and 50% percent of crashes attributed to driver distraction; 10,000 lives lost; $40 billion in damages each year

Human Computer Interaction Specialty Report, November 1, 2002 Implementing IVIS Functions

Human Computer Interaction Specialty Report, November 1, 2002 Interference Mitigation n Direct Communication Commands associated with specific tasks n Physical Integration Only IVIS functions may share the same interface or location, but do not share information n Static Interference Minimization Distraction assessment focuses on structural distraction, resulting in locked-out functions Does not consider how driving demands change over time

Human Computer Interaction Specialty Report, November 1, 2002 Workload Management n Direct Communication Commands associated with specific tasks n Functional Integration (FI) With Direct Communication FI considers the information required and produced by each function to support communication between the driver, the IVIS, and the roadway n IVIS-Centered Workload Management Dynamically predicts how workload will respond to changes in the driving task and use of the IVIS IVIS actively adjusts functionality by estimating the demands of the current roadway and IVIS states. Considers mental overload as the only source of distraction and overlooks the issues of cognitive tunneling and attentional withdrawal

Human Computer Interaction Specialty Report, November 1, 2002 Challenges facing IVIS Implementation n How can IVIS functionality be made safer and easier to use, without succumbing to the usability paradox and resulting in decreased overall roadway safety? 1. What factors affect a driver’s willingness to engage in IVIS interactions? 2. What are the consequences of error recovery in speech recognition systems on driver performance? 3. How do we guide drivers to avoid inappropriate reliance on speed control and collision warnings functions? 4. How do we implement collision warning functions such that the rate of false alarms will not undermine driver acceptance? n The interference mitigation and workload manager approaches have not addressed these issues

Human Computer Interaction Specialty Report, November 1, 2002 Attention Grounding n Collaborative Grounding n Functional Integration with Back-Channel Communication n Driver-Centered Attention Distribution

Human Computer Interaction Specialty Report, November 1, 2002 Collaborative Grounding n Incorporates back-channel cues to allow us to establish grounding without disrupting the flow of conversation: creates a Shared Context n Collaborative Grounding supports: Initiating communication Delays in communication Driver attention distribution Information coordination Understanding uncertainty in IVIS communication Making Repairs

Human Computer Interaction Specialty Report, November 1, 2002 Functional Integration with Back-Channel Communication n Allows for more complete driver monitoring n The shared context created by back-channel communication and collaborative grounding can extend the benefits of functional integration

Human Computer Interaction Specialty Report, November 1, 2002 Driver-Centered Attention Distribution n Uses shared context to consider the evolving driving situation in distributing attention (vs. exceeding a pool of resources) n Back-channel cues can be used to help distribute the driver’s attention appropriately

Human Computer Interaction Specialty Report, November 1, 2002 Collaborative communication: Direct and back-channel communication in driving

Human Computer Interaction Specialty Report, November 1, 2002 Challenges facing IVIS Implementation What factors affect a driver’s willingness to engage in IVIS interactions? AG supports the driver as an active participant in choosing when and how IVIS functions are used. What are the consequences of error recovery in speech recognition systems on driver performance? Grounding in the state of IVIS can support error recovery and promote more fluent speech interaction. How do we guide drivers to avoid inappropriate reliance on speed control and collision warnings functions? Grounding in the state of automation may help avoid inappropriate reliance. How do we implement collision warning functions such that the rate of false alarms will not undermine driver acceptance? Back-channel cues can provide drivers with continuous information that may be less annoying than discrete alerts.