Human Factors Research Group, Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK.
Human Factors Research Group, Faculty of Engineering, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK.
J Safety Res. 2014 Jun;49:69-75. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2014.02.009. Epub 2014 Mar 22.
Automobiles are suffused with computers and technology designed to support drivers at all levels of the driving hierarchy. Classic secondary devices, such as in-vehicle navigation systems (IVNS), present strategic and tactical information to drivers. In order to mitigate the potential distraction and workload when interacting with these devices while driving, IVNS often employ voices to deliver navigational instructions. In contrast, voices are used during interpersonal encounters to engage the listener, provide clues about the speaker's personality and make judgments about them, for example, whether to like them and to trust them.
A study conducted within a fixed-based medium-fidelity driving simulator investigated if drivers made similar 'personality' attributions to voices emanating from an IVNS and if this subsequently affected how they engaged with the device while driving. Twenty-nine experienced drivers and IVNS users drove to a specified destination with a simulated IVNS and authentically reproduced UK road signage to support their route-finding. Either of two navigation voices were used; one considered 'high-trust' and the other 'low-trust.' Presented with a conflict scenario, where the verbal route guidance differed to the road signs, 22 drivers followed the IVNS instruction rather than the road signs. Of these, the majority were using the 'high-trust' voice.
A post-drive questionnaire revealed that, despite the fact that message content and delivery remained equivalent, participants recognized different attributes ('personalities') associated with each of the navigation voices. This influenced their attitudes towards them, including how much they liked them, their preferences for use, and the level of trust that they associated with each voice.
While these, so-called, social responses may be invited and indeed encouraged in other contexts, in the automotive domain they are likely to conflict with the intended benefits of using a voice to deliver route guidance and therefore have implications for road safety and design.
汽车中充满了旨在为各级驾驶员提供支持的计算机和技术。车载导航系统 (IVNS) 等经典的辅助设备为驾驶员提供战略和战术信息。为了减轻在驾驶时与这些设备交互时潜在的分心和工作负荷，IVNS 通常使用语音来提供导航指令。相比之下，语音在人际交流中被用来吸引听众，提供关于说话者个性的线索，并对其进行判断，例如是否喜欢他们以及是否信任他们。
在固定基础的中等保真度驾驶模拟器中进行的一项研究调查了驾驶员是否会对来自 IVNS 的声音做出类似的“个性”归因，以及这是否会影响他们在驾驶时与该设备的交互方式。29 名经验丰富的驾驶员和 IVNS 用户使用模拟 IVNS 和真实再现的英国道路标志驾驶到指定目的地，以支持他们的路线查找。使用了两种导航声音之一；一种被认为是“高信任”，另一种是“低信任”。在遇到冲突情景时，即口头路线引导与道路标志不一致时，22 名驾驶员遵循 IVNS 指令而不是道路标志。其中，大多数人使用的是“高信任”声音。
驾驶后问卷调查显示，尽管消息内容和传递保持不变，但参与者识别出与每个导航声音相关联的不同属性（“个性”）。这影响了他们对它们的态度，包括他们的喜好程度、对使用的偏好以及对每个声音的信任程度。
虽然这些所谓的社交反应可能会在其他情况下被邀请并确实被鼓励，但在汽车领域，它们可能会与使用语音提供路线引导的预期好处相冲突，因此对道路安全和设计产生影响。
