本篇研究產出一個汽車資訊娛樂系統的觸覺介面改良設計，針對幾種面向的效能進行評估並且和現有的觸覺界面比較。新的觸覺介面設計是基於現存觸覺介面(方向盤控制按鍵)的優點和改進其缺點做為目標而設計。
前置研究對現有汽車搭配的不同種類觸覺介面進行蒐集和評估。在真實交通狀況的環境透過邊說邊做法和DALI 方法進行實際觀察和分析，並將所得到的結果作為新的觸覺介面(NDI)設計的指引。結果顯示方向盤控制按鈕(SWC)在駕駛人評價和工作負荷成績表現最佳，因此新的介面設計(NDI)建立在方向盤控制按鍵(SWC)的基礎上。為了評估NDI的成效，製作了兩種介面的原型，邀請14名實驗參與者分別對兩種介面進行駕駛模擬，將記錄過程和相關數據。
實驗收集主觀和客觀資料。如先前研究中提到，駕駛當中進行次要任務(Secondary task)時，會對橫向控制(Lateral control)造成明顯的影響，而縱向控制(Longitudinal control)的影響則較不明顯，本研究也觀察到相同趨勢。客觀資料顯示，在橫向控制方面，NDI比起SWC有顯著較低的車道偏移率。但是相對的，進行次要任務的錯誤率NDI也比較高，代表使用NDI時有較大的機會在使用選單的過程發生錯誤。上述結果與主觀資料相符合，實驗參與者給予NDI較高的快捷度(Rapidity)分數和較SWC低的精準度(Accuracy)分數。在駕駛安全方面，NDI因為有著較低的車道偏移率，所以被認定為較SWC安全的觸覺介面。
NDI被證明顯著性的較SWC安全。研究中發現，無論實驗參與者偏好NDI或SWC，在駕駛表現方面，NDI多有較佳的表現。另外，NDI 在主觀測量中被評為較低的精準度與較高的快捷度，客觀測量中也印證相同的結果(較多的字要任務錯誤率以及較多的任務完成數目)。這些評估證明NDI在選單操作具有取代現有SWC介面的潛力。結論中提到為了降低次要任務的錯誤，對NDI的觸覺回饋以及位置微調的改進建議。藉由比較安全的操作介面，我們面對這個資訊如此豐富的世界能夠有更好的準備。

In this study, an improved design of the haptic interface of the In-Vehicle Infotainment System (IVIS) is presented, and its performance in regard to several aspects is verified and compared with the existing haptic interface (steering wheel control). The design of the presented interface is based on the strength of the steering wheel control, and the aim is to eliminate its shortcomings.
A pilot study is carried out to survey the haptic interfaces equipped in cars. The strengths and weaknesses of each kind of interface were evaluated through think aloud observation and the Driving Activity Load Index (DALI) under real traffic driving conditions. With the obtained results and suggestions of a focus group, a new designed interface (NDI) was revealed. Prototypes of the new design and the steering wheel control (SWC), which performed the best in terms of driver preference and workload scores in the pilot study, were developed and evaluated through a driving simulation by 14 participants. Participants were required to operate a simulated IVIS with both haptic interfaces under driving conditions.
Objective and subjective measurements of the driving simulation were derived. Previous studies have found that performing secondary tasks while driving has a major impact on lateral control but less influence to the driver’s longitudinal control; the same tendency was discovered in this study. The objective results show that the NDI performed better than the SWC in terms of lateral control; in this case, it meant leaving fewer lanes. Conversely, the NDI has a greater error rate when performing secondary tasks, which means making more mistakes when making selections through the menu. These results match the subjective results: participants gave higher scores to the NDI in the rapidity factor but lower scores in the accuracy factor. Concerning driving safety, the NDI was superior due to leaving fewer lanes, although participants tend to make more mistakes in menu selection.
All in all, the NDI is proven significantly safer than the SWC. It was discovered that regardless whether the participant preferred the NDI or whether or not the SWC worked better, the NDI provided less lane leaving opportunities among participants. The NDI was rated lower in accuracy and higher in rapidity by the participants; these results can also be observed in the objective measurements: higher secondary task errors yet more tasks done in a single run. Through the evaluation, the NDI has proven that it has good potential to replace the current SWC interface in menu selection tasks. To eliminate secondary task error rate, suggestions to improve the NDI with better haptic feedback and minor position adjustment are mentioned in the conclusions. With interfaces providing safe operation, rich practical information is available to drivers.

Annett, John. (2002). Subjective rating scales: science or art? Ergonomics, 45(14), 966-987.
Bach, Kenneth Majlund, J, Mads Gregers, #230, ger, Skov, Mikael B., & Thomassen, Nils Gram. (2009). Interacting with in-vehicle systems: understanding, measuring, and evaluating attention. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Celebrating People and Technology, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Basdogan, Cagatay, & Srinivasan, Mandayam A. (2002). Haptic rendering in virtual environments. Handbook of virtual environments, 117-134.
Bergamasco, M., & Avizzano, C.A. (1997). Virtual environment technologies in rehabilitation. Paper presented at the Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation.
Berthoz, Alain. (1997). Sens du mouvement (Le): Odile Jacob.
Biggs, S James, & Srinivasan, Mandayam A. (2002). Haptic interfaces. Handbook of virtual environments, 93-116.
Bose, Raja, Brakensiek, rg, & Park, Keun-Young. (2010). Terminal mode: transforming mobile devices into automotive application platforms. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Brooks Jr, Frederick P, Ouh-Young, Ming, Batter, James J, & Jerome Kilpatrick, P. (1990). Project GROPEHaptic displays for scientific visualization. Paper presented at the ACM SIGGraph computer graphics.
Chin, E, Nathan, F, Pauzié, A, Manzano, J, Nodari, E, Cherri, C, . . . Marchitto, M. (2004). Subjective Assessment Methods for Workload. AIDE Deliverable, 2(6).
Cnossen, F., Rothengatter, T., & Meijman, T. (2000). Strategic changes in task performance in simulated car driving as an adaptive response to task demands. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 3(3), 123-140.
Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2012). Visual-Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices.
Döring, Tanja, Kern, Dagmar, Marshall, Paul, Pfeiffer, Max, Schöning, Johannes, Gruhn, Volker, & Schmidt, Albrecht. (2011). Gestural interaction on the steering wheel: reducing the visual demand. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems.
Dufresne, Aude, Martial, Odile, & Ramstein, Christophe. (1995). Multimodal user interface system for blind and" visually occupied" users: ergonomic evaluation of the haptic and auditive dimensions. Paper presented at the Interact.
Ecker, Ronald, Broy, Verena, Hertzschuch, Katja, & Butz, Andreas. (2010). Visual cues supporting direct touch gesture interaction with in-vehicle information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications.
Eysenck, M.W. (1993). Principles of cognitive psychology: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Flanagan, J Randall, & Lederman, Susan J. (2001). Neurobiology: Feeling bumps and holes. Nature, 412(6845), 389-391.
Green, P. (1999). The 15-second rule for driver information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ITS America Ninth Annual Meeting.
Haigney, DE, Taylor, RG, & Westerman, SJ. (2000). Concurrent mobile (cellular) phone use and driving performance: task demand characteristics and compensatory processes. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 3(3), 113-121.
Harbluk, Joanne L, Burns, Peter C, Lochner, Martin, & Trbovich, Patricia L. (2007). Using the lane-change test (LCT) to assess distraction: Tests of visual-manual and speech-based operation of navigation system interfaces. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 4th international driving symposium on human factors in driver assessment, training, and vehicle design.
Harbluk, Joanne L, Mitroi, Julia S, & Burns, Peter C. (2009). Three navigation systems with three tasks: using the lane-change test (LCT) to assess distraction demand. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 5th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design.
Harvey, C., Stanton, N. A., Pickering, C. A., McDonald, M., & Zheng, P. (2011). A usability evaluation toolkit for In-Vehicle Information Systems (IVISs). Appl Ergon, 42(4), 563-574. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2010.09.013
Hayward, Vincent, Astley, Oliver R, Cruz-Hernandez, Manuel, Grant, Danny, & Robles-De-La-Torre, Gabriel. (2004). Haptic interfaces and devices. Sensor Review, 24(1), 16-29.
Hogan, Neville, Kay, BA, Fasse, Ernest Dean, & Mussa-Ivaldi, Ferdinando A. (1990). Haptic illusions: Experiments on human manipulation and perception of “virtual objects”. Paper presented at the Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology.
Jenness, James W, Lattanzio, Raymond J, O'TOOLE, MAURA, TAYLOR, NANCY, & Pax, Christina. (2002). Effects of manual versus voice-activated dialing during simulated driving. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94(2), 363-379.
Kaber, David B, Liang, Yulan, Zhang, Yu, Rogers, Meghan L, & Gangakhedkar, Shruti. (2012). Driver performance effects of simultaneous visual and cognitive distraction and adaptation behavior. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 15(5), 491-501.
Kortum, Philip. (2008). HCI beyond the GUI: Design for haptic, speech, olfactory, and other nontraditional interfaces: Morgan Kaufmann.
Krebs, Hermano Igo, Hogan, Neville, Aisen, Mindy L, & Volpe, Bruce T. (1998). Robot-aided neurorehabilitation. Rehabilitation Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 6(1), 75-87.
Lansdown, TC. (2000). Driver visual allocation and the introduction of intelligent transport systems. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, 214(6), 645-652.
Lee, John D. (2007). Technology and teen drivers. Journal of Safety Research, 38(2), 203-214.
Liu, Bor-Shong, & Lee, Yung-Hui. (2006). In-vehicle workload assessment: effects of traffic situations and cellular telephone use. Journal of Safety Research, 37(1), 99-105.
Loan, P., Cagatay, B., & Rosen, J. (1997). Surgical simulation: An emerging technology for training in emergency medicine: Presence.
MacLean, Karon E, & Roderick, Jayne B. (1999). Smart tangible displays in the everyday world: a haptic door knob. Paper presented at the Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, 1999. Proceedings. 1999 IEEE/ASME International Conference on.
Massie, Thomas H, & Salisbury, J Kenneth. (1994). The phantom haptic interface: A device for probing virtual objects. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ASME winter annual meeting, symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems.
McNeely, William A, Puterbaugh, Kevin D, & Troy, James J. (2005). Six degree-of-freedom haptic rendering using voxel sampling. Paper presented at the ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Courses.
Nahvi, Ali, Nelson, Donald D, Hollerbach, John M, & Johnson, David E. (1998). Haptic manipulation of virtual mechanisms from mechanical CAD designs. Paper presented at the Robotics and Automation, 1998. Proceedings. 1998 IEEE International Conference on.
Nielsen, Jakob. (1997). The use and misuse of focus groups. Software, IEEE, 14(1), 94-95.
O'Modhrain, Maura Sile, & Adviser-Chafe, Chris. (2001). Playing by feel: incorporating haptic feedback into computer-based musical instruments: Stanford University.
OECD. (1990). Behavioural adaptations to changes in the road transport system: Paris : Washington, D.C. : Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Road Transport Research.
Payette, Jule, Hayward, V, Ramstein, C, & Bergeron, D. (1996). Evaluation of a force feedback (haptic) computer pointing device in zero gravity. Proceedings of the ASME Dynamcis Systems and Control Division, 58, 547-553.
Richter, Hendrik, Ecker, Ronald, Deisler, Christopher, & Butz, Andreas. (2010). HapTouch and the 2+ 1 state model: potentials of haptic feedback on touch based in-vehicle information systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications.
Robles-De-La-Torre, Gabriel, & Hayward, Vincent. (2000). Virtual surfaces and haptic shape perception. Paper presented at the Proceedings ASME IMECE Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environments and Teleoperator Systems.
Robles-De-La-Torre, Gabriel, & Hayward, Vincent. (2001). Force can overcome object geometry in the perception of shape through active touch. Nature, 412(6845), 445-448.
Rovan, Joseph, & Hayward, Vincent. (2000). Typology of tactile sounds and their synthesis in gesture-driven computer music performance. Trends in gestural control of music, 297-320.
Strayer, David L, Cooper, Joel M, & Drews, Frank A. (2004). What do drivers fail to see when conversing on a cell phone? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.
Streff, F, & Spradlin, H. (2000). Driver distraction, aggression, and fatigue: a synthesis of the literature and guidelines for Michigan planning. Ann Arbor, 1001, 48109.
Stutts, Jane C, Reinfurt, Donald W, Staplin, Loren, & Rodgman, Eric A. (2001). The role of driver distraction in traffic crashes: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety Washington, DC.
Sussman, E Donald, Bishop, H, Madnick, B, & Walter, R. (1985). Driver inattention and highway safety. Transportation Research Record, 1047, 40-48.
Treat, John R. (1980). A study of precrash factors involved in traffic accidents. HSRI Research Review.
Van Someren, Maarten W, Barnard, Yvonne F, & Sandberg, Jacobijn AC. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical guide to modelling cognitive processes: Academic Press London.
Wang, Jing-Shiarn, Knipling, Ronald R, & Goodman, Michael J. (1996). The role of driver inattention in crashes; new statistics from the 1995 Crashworthiness Data System. Paper presented at the PROCEEDINGS OF THE 40TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF AUTOMOTIVE MEDICINE, VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA, OCTOBER 7-9, 1996.
Weinberg, Garrett, Knowles, Andrew, & Langer, Patrick. (2012). Bullseye: An Automotive Touch Interface that’s Always on Target.
Weisenberger, Janet M, Krier, Michael J, & Rinker, Martha A. (2000). Judging the orientation of sinusoidal and square-wave virtual gratings presented via 2-DOF and 3-DOF haptic interfaces. Haptics-e, 1(4), 1-20.
Wickens, Christopher D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical issues in ergonomics science, 3(2), 159-177.
Williamson, Amy R, Young, Kristie L, Navarro, Jordan, & Lenne, Michael G. (2011). Music selection using a touch screen interface: effect of auditory and visual feedback on driving and usability. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 57(4), 391-404.
Wittmann, Marc, Kiss, Miklos, Gugg, Peter, Steffen, Alexander, Fink, Martina, Pöppel, Ernst, & Kamiya, Hiroyuki. (2006). Effects of display position of a visual in-vehicle task on simulated driving. Applied ergonomics, 37(2), 187-199.
Young, Kristie L, Lenné, Michael G, & Williamson, Amy R. (2011). Sensitivity of the lane change test as a measure of in-vehicle system demand. Applied ergonomics, 42(4), 611-618.
Young, Kristie L, Regan, M.A., & Hammer, M. (2007). Driver distraction: A review of the literature. Distracted driving. Sydney, NSW: Australasian College of Road Safety, 379-405.
Young, Kristie L, Regan, Michael A, & Lee, John D. (2009). Measuring the effects of driver distraction: Direct driving performance methods and measures. Driver Distraction: Theory, Effects and Mitigation, 85-106.