%0 Journal Article
%T Development and Evaluation of Automotive Speech Interfaces: Useful Information from the Human Factors and the Related Literature
%A Victor Ei-Wen Lo
%A Paul A. Green
%J International Journal of Vehicular Technology
%D 2013
%I Hindawi Publishing Corporation
%R 10.1155/2013/924170
%X Drivers often use infotainment systems in motor vehicles, such as systems for navigation, music, and phones. However, operating visual-manual interfaces for these systems can distract drivers. Speech interfaces may be less distracting. To help designing easy-to-use speech interfaces, this paper identifies key speech interfaces (e.g., CHAT, Linguatronic, SYNC, Siri, and Google Voice), their features, and what was learned from evaluating them and other systems. Also included is information on key technical standards (e.g., ISO 9921, ITU P.800) and relevant design guidelines. This paper also describes relevant design and evaluation methods (e.g., Wizard of Oz) and how to make driving studies replicable (e.g., by referencing SAE J2944). Throughout the paper, there is discussion of linguistic terms (e.g., turn-taking) and principles (e.g., Grice¡¯s Conversational Maxims) that provide a basis for describing user-device interactions and errors in evaluations. 1. Introduction In recent years, automotive and consumer-product manufacturers have incorporated speech interfaces into their products. Published data on the number of vehicles sold with speech interfaces is not readily available, though the numbers appear to be substantial. Speech interfaces are of interest because visual-manual alternatives are distracting, causing drivers to look away from the road, and increasing crash risk. Stutts et al. [1] reported that adjusting and controlling entertainment systems and climate-control systems and using cell phones accounted for 19% of all crashes related to distraction. The fact that the use of entertainment systems is ranked the second among major causes of these crashes arises the argument that speech interfaces should be used for music selection. Tsimhoni et al. [2] reported that 82% less time was needed for drivers to enter an address using a speech interface as opposed to using a keyboard, indicating that a speech interface is preferred for that task. However, using a speech interface still requires cognitive demand, which can interfere with the primary driving task. For example, Lee et al. [3] showed that drivers¡¯ reaction time increased by 180£¿ms when using a complex speech-controlled email system (three levels of menus with four-to-seven options for each menu) in comparison with a simpler alternative (three levels of menus with two options per menu). Given these advantages, suppliers and automanufacturers have put significant effort into developing speech interfaces for cars. They still have a long way to go. The influential automotive.com website notes
%U http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijvt/2013/924170/