| Literature DB >> 35237552 |
Hao Yang1, Yueran Wang2, Ruoyu Jia1.
Abstract
Carsharing scale has been increasing rapidly with sharing economy. However, many users are reluctant to rent cars any longer due to the low-quality of interactive experience and usability, especially in terms of the dashboard design. This challenge should be urgently addressed in order to maintain the sustainable development of car-sharing industry and its environmental benefits. This study aims to investigate the relationship between users' driving activities (e.g., searching time, reading time, eye movement, heart rate) and dashboard layout. This study was conducted based on the experimental investigation among 58 respondents who were required to complete driving tasks in four types of cars with different dashboard layouts. Afterwards, a prediction model was developed to predict users heart rate (HR) based on the long short-term memory model, and logistic models were used to examine the relationship between the occurrence probability of minimum HR and dashboard reading. The results showed that the system usability of a dashboard was related to the drivers' eye movement characteristics including fixation duration, fixation times and pupil diameter. Most indicators had significant effects (p < 0.05) on the system usability score of corresponding dashboard. The long short-term memory model network (RMSE = 1.105, MAE = 0.009) was capable of predicting heart rate (HR) that happened in the process of instrument reading, which presented a periodic pattern rather than a continuous increase or decrease. It reflected that the network could better fit the non-linear and time-sequential laws of HR data. Furthermore, the probability of the lowest heart rate occurrence during the interaction with four dashboards was influenced by the average searching time, reading time and reading accuracy that were related to a specific layout. Overall, this study provided a theoretical reference for uncovering users' adaptive behaviors with the central control screen and for the optimal choice of a suitable dashboard layout in interface design.Entities:
Keywords: eye movement; heart rate; long short-term memory model (LSTM); physiological behavior; shared car
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35237552 PMCID: PMC8884267 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.813859
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Diagram of experimental design.
Figure 2The stimuli of the experiment: (A–D) four types of dashboard layouts.
Figure 3Workflow diagram of the experiment.
Figure 4Part of the scenes on the driving simulator screen: (A) straight line, (B) crosswalk, (C) left turning, and (D) a photograph of field display.
Dashboard interaction evaluation index system of shared cars.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Interaction efficiency | Searching time | The period from the beginning of scanning to the time when the subject discovered the target dial |
| Reading time | The duration from the beginning of reading the instruments to the end of reading | |
| Total task completion time | The sum of the searching time and reading time | |
| Reading accuracy | The ratio of cases being read correctly to the total number of reading times | |
| Eye movement characteristics | Fixation times | The average number of fixation times of the subjects under each dashboard during the reading process |
| Fixation duration | The average fixation time of the subjects under each dashboard during the reading process | |
| Pupil diameter | The average pupil diameter of the subjects under each dashboard during the reading process | |
| Mental stress changes | Heart rate | The frequency of heart contraction (times/min), which was taken every 3s |
| System usability | SUS score | The subjects assessed the 10 items in the scale and calculated the score. |
Basic information of the subjects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 31 | 53.45 | 3–5 years | 39 | 67.24 |
| Female | 27 | 46.55 | 5.1–10 years | 17 | 29.31 |
| More than 10 years | 2 | 3.45 | |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 23–29 years old | 46 | 79.31 | College and University | 32 | 55.17 |
| 30–36 years old | 12 | 20.69 | Master | 18 | 31.04 |
| Ph.D | 8 | 13.79 |
Figure 5The memory cell of LSTM.
Figure 6Dashboard reading task completion time vs layouts.
Results of paired sample t-test on searching time.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Type A | 2.235* | −2.76** | −7.569*** |
| Type B | −7.755*** | −9.118*** | |
| Type C | −8.736*** |
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Results of paired sample t-test on reading time.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Type A | −7.161*** | −6.42*** | −6.555*** |
| Type B | 2.536* | 3.862*** | |
| Type C | 2.99** |
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
The eye movement characteristics and SUS scores under the four dashboard layouts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A_FD (s) | 1.029 | 0.131 | 0.704 | 1.243 |
| A_FT (times) | 7.766 | 1.567 | 4.116 | 11.285 |
| A_PD (mm) | 3.193 | 0.577 | 1.836 | 4.466 |
| A_SUS | 84.612 | 3.529 | 77.5 | 92.5 |
| B_FD (s) | 1.129 | 0.133 | 0.818 | 1.377 |
| B_FT (times) | 7.364 | 1.197 | 4.886 | 10.59 |
| B_PD (mm) | 3.56 | 0.42 | 2.81 | 4.572 |
| B_SUS | 81.595 | 3.796 | 75 | 90 |
| C_FD (s) | 1.378 | 0.18 | 0.977 | 1.739 |
| C_FT (times) | 8.029 | 1.819 | 3.871 | 12.132 |
| C_PD (mm) | 4.025 | 0.351 | 3.233 | 4.79 |
| C_SUS | 78.578 | 4.192 | 67.5 | 87.5 |
| D_FD (s) | 1.061 | 0.098 | 0.835 | 1.284 |
| D_FT (times) | 8.06 | 1.065 | 5.426 | 9.877 |
| D_PD (mm) | 3.828 | 0.512 | 2.87 | 5.199 |
| D_SUS | 80.862 | 3.161 | 72.5 | 87.5 |
Figure 7The ECG waveforms of a subject during driving (A) in a straight section of the road and (B) turning along a large radius curve.
Figure 8(A) HR prediction results and (B) RMSE changes.
Results of the logistic regression.
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type A | (base outcome) | ||||
| Type B | Searching time | −3.68 | 1.448 | −2.54 | 0.011 |
| Reading time | 2.223 | 1.112 | 2 | 0.046 | |
| Reading accuracy | −3.016 | 2.745 | −1.1 | 0.272 | |
| _cons | 0.015 | 2.243 | 0.01 | 0.995 | |
| Type C | Searching time | 5.248 | 2.124 | 2.47 | 0.013 |
| Reading time | −3.64 | 1.526 | −2.39 | 0.017 | |
| Reading accuracy | −5.022 | 3.374 | −1.49 | 0.137 | |
| _cons | 2.91 | 2.818 | 1.03 | 0.302 | |
| Type D | Searching time | 6.967 | 2.63 | 2.65 | 0.008 |
| Reading time | −5.963 | 1.97 | −3.03 | 0.002 | |
| Reading accuracy | −8.848 | 4.414 | −2 | 0.045 | |
| _cons | 5.686 | 3.163 | 1.8 | 0.072 |