JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Development and Evaluation of Smart Secondary Controls Using iPad for People with Hemiplegic Disabilities
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Development and Evaluation of Smart Secondary Controls Using iPad for People with Hemiplegic Disabilities
Song, Jeongheon; Kim, Yongchul;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate smart secondary controls using iPad for the drivers with physical disabilities in the driving simulator. Background: The physically disabled drivers face problems in the operation of secondary control devices that accept a control input from a driver for the purpose of operating the subsystems of a motor vehicle. Many of conventional secondary controls consist of small knobs or switches that physically disabled drivers have difficulties in grasping, pulling or twisting. Therefore, their use while driving might increase distraction and workload because of longer operation time. Method: We examined the operation time of conventional and smart secondary controls, such as hazard warning, turn signal, window, windshield wiper, headlights, automatic transmission and horn. The hardware of smart secondary control system was composed of iPad, wireless router, digital input/output module and relay switch. We used the STISim Drive3 software for driving test, customized Labview and Xcode programs for interface control of smart secondary system. Nine subjects were involved in the study for measuring operation time of secondary controls. Results: When the driver was in the stationary condition, the average operation time of smart secondary devices decreased 32.5% in the normal subjects (p <0.01), 47.4% in the subjects with left hemiplegic disabilities (p <0.01) and 38.8% in the subjects with right hemiplegic disabilities (p <0.01) compared with conventional secondary devices. When the driver was driving for the test in the simulator, the average operation time of smart secondary devices decreased 36.1% in the normal subjects (p <0.01), 41.7% in the subjects with left hemiplegic disabilities (p <0.01) and 34.1% in the subjects with right hemiplegic disabilities (p <0.01) compared with conventional secondary devices. Conclusion: The smart secondary devices using iPad for people with hemiplegic disabilities showed significant reduction of operation time compared with conventional secondary controls. Application: This study can be used to design secondary controls for adaptive vehicles and to improve the quality of life of the people with disabilities.
 Keywords
Secondary driving controls;Smart device;Driving simulator;Human machine interface (HMI);
 Language
English
 Cited by
1.
Driving Performance of Adaptive Driving Controls using Drive-by-Wire Technology for People with Disabilities, Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, 2016, 35, 1, 11  crossref(new windwow)
 References
1.
Babara, L. and Mazer, B.L., Predicting ability to drive after stroke, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 79, 743-750, 1998. crossref(new window)

2.
Baber, C., Beyond the Desktop: Designing and Using Interaction Devices, Academic Press, USA, 1996.

3.
Baumann, M., Keinath, A., Ktems, J.F. and Bengler, K., Evaluating of in-vehicle HMI using occlusion techniques: experimental results and practical implications, Applied Ergonomics, 35, 197-205, 2004. crossref(new window)

4.
Brookhuis, K.A., Vries, G.D. and Waard, D.D., The effects of mobile telephoning on driving performance, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 23(4), 309-316, 1991. crossref(new window)

5.
Dingus, T.A., Antin, J.F., Hulse, M.C. and Wierwille, W.W., Human factors issues associated with in-car navigation system usage, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 1448-1452, 1988.

6.
Jung, W. and Kim, Y., Development of smart driving system using iPod and its performance evaluation for people with severe physical disabilities in the driving simulator, Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, 31(5), 637-646, 2012. crossref(new window)

7.
Klauer, S.G., Dingus, T.A., Neale, V.L., Sudweeks, J.D. and Ramsey, D.J., The impact of driver inattention on near-crash/crash risk:An analysis using the 100-car naturalistic driving study data, U. S. Department of Transportation, 2006.

8.
Koo, T., Kim, B., Ji, S., Bae, C., Park, J. and Suh, M., A Study on workload of using telematics while driving, Transactions of KSAE, 17(2), 26-33, 2009.

9.
Kun, A.L., Paek, Tim, Medenica, Z., Memarovic, N. and Palinko, O., Glancing at personal navigation devices can affect driving:experimental results and design implications, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Automotive user Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 129-136, 2009.

10.
Lim, H.U., Jung, E.S., Park, S. and Jeong, S.W., Comparisons of driver performance with control types of the driver information system, Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, 26(1), 1-10, 2007.

11.
Mazer, B.L., Korner-Bitensky, N.A. and Sofer, S., Predicting ability to drive after stroke, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 79(7), 743-750, 1998. crossref(new window)

12.
Mcknight, A.J. and Adams, B., Driver education task analysis: Vol. 1. Task description, U. S. Department of Transportation, 1970.

13.
Merat, N., Anttila, V. and Luoma, J., Comparing the driving performance of average and older drivers: the effect of surrogate invehicle information systems, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8(2), 147-166, 2005.

14.
National Human Rights Commission of Korea, Driver license system meeting, 2002.

15.
Park, S-S., Hu., H. and Lee, W-S., A study on physical signal changes due to distraction in simulated driving, Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, 29(1), 55-59, 2010. crossref(new window)

16.
Patten, C.J.D., Kircher, A., Ostlund, J. and Nilsson, L., Using mobile telephones: cognitive workload and attention resource allocation, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 341-350, 2004. crossref(new window)

17.
Road Traffic Authority, driver's License Examination Office, http://www.dla.go.kr.

18.
Rockwell, T.H., Spare visual capacity in driving-revisited: New empirical results for an old idea, Vision in Vehicle II, 317-324, Elsevier Science, Netherlands, 1988.

19.
Roush, L. and Koppa, R., A survey of activation importance of individual secondary controls in modified vehicles, Assistive Technology, 66-69, 1992.

20.
Shinar, D., Tractinsky, N. and Compton, R., Effects of practice, age, and task demands, on interference from a phone task while driving, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37, 315-326, 2005. crossref(new window)

21.
Summala, H., Accident risk and driver behavior, Safety Science, 22(1-3), 103-117, 1996. crossref(new window)

22.
Wester, A.E., Bocker, K.B.E., Volkerts, E.R., Verster, J.C. and Kenemans, J.L., Event-related potentials and secondary task performance during simulated driving, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40(1), 1-7, 2008. crossref(new window)