Effects of Voice Technology on Test Track Driving Performance: Implications for Driver Distraction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work compares the degradation in driving performance associated with secondary tasks performed with voice-based and visual/manual interfaces, including radio tuning, phone dialing, and more complex tasks involving a sequence of interactions with an in-vehicle computer system. Twenty-one participants drove an instrumented vehicle while performing a combination of car-following, peripheral target detection, and secondary tasks on a closed test track. Drivers compensated for increased task demands associated with secondary tasks by increasing their following distance. Performing secondary tasks also resulted in significant decrements to vehicle control, target detection, and car-following performance. The voice-based interface helped reduce the distracting effects of secondary task performance. Modest improvements were observed for measures of vehicle control and target detection but not for car following. The results indicated that performing in-vehicle tasks required diversion of both peripheral (visual and manual) and attentional (cognitive) resources from driving. The voice-based interface reduced the peripheral impairment but did not appreciably reduce the attentional impairment. Actual or potential applications of this research include improvements to the design of invehicle information systems and the development of evaluation protocols to assess their distraction potential.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it