A Tactile Seat For Direction Coding in Car Driving Field Evaluation-8eF

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON HAPTICS,
VOL. 2,
NO. 4,
OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2009
181
A Tactile Seat for Direction Coding

in Car Driving: Field Evaluation
Jeroen H. Hogema, Sjoerd C. De Vries, Jan B.F. Van Erp, and Raymond J. Kiefer
AbstractThis in-traffic, field study examined the merit of using a car seat instrumented with tactile stimulation elements (tactors) to
communicate directional information to a driver. A car seat fitted with an 8 8 matrix of tactors embedded in the seat pan was used to
code eight different directions (the four cardinal and four oblique directions). With this seat mounted in a car, a field study was
conducted under both smooth road and brick road vibratory conditions. The primary performance measures were directional accuracy
and reaction time, measured under both alerted and simulated surprise conditions. Overall, the results show that the tactile chair seat
provides a promising and robust method of providing directional information. The percentage of correct directional responses was very
high (92 percent of all trials), and incorrect responses were typically just one location segment (45 degrees) off.
Index TermsHaptic I/O, human factors, user interfaces.
INTRODUCTION
MERGING driver assistance, crash avoidance, communication, and entertainment systems provide drivers
access to increasing levels of in-vehicle information. Drivers
depend on processing visual, and to a less extent, auditory
information to control their vehicle. Although the sense of
touch plays a role in the perception of vehicle accelerations
and vibrations, it is generally far less central to driving than
the visual or auditory senses. This suggests that the sense of
touch could be used to provide a readily available channel
communicating information to the driver.
In recent studies, favorable effects of touch-based displays on navigation performance, situational awareness,
and workload reduction have been shown for pilots [1],
astronauts [2], and speed boat drivers [3]. In the past decade,
several studies have focused on tactile display applications
for car driving. Martens and Van Winsum [4] found that a
warning method involving vibrating the accelerator pedal
was more effective than a speech-based warning. Enriques
and MacLean [5] developed a force feedback throttle pedal
to present warning signals, and observed large differences
in driver behavior. Ho et al. demonstrated that touch cues
on the drivers back and stomach decreased choice reaction
times (RT) performance in car driving [6], [7], [8]. Scott and
Gray [9] compared driver RTs to alerts from a collision
warning and found tactile warnings outperformed both
visual and auditory warnings.
The first tactile matrix displays built into the back rest or
seat of a chair were reported by Tan et al. [10] and Van Erp
et al. [11], respectively. The back rest display consisted of a
. J.H. Hogema, S.C. De Vries, and J.B.F. Van Erp are with TNO Human
Factors, PO Box 23, 3769 ZG, Soesterberg, The Netherlands.
E-mail: {jeroen.hogema, sjoerd.devries, jan.vanerp}@tno.nl.
. R.J. Kiefer is with the General Motors Global Structure & Safety Integration
Center, Engineering-East, Mail Code 480111E18, 30200 Mound Road,
Warren, MI 48090-9010. E-mail: raymond.j.kiefer@gm.com.
Manuscript received 14 Nov. 2008; revised 15 Mar. 2009; accepted 30 June
2009; published online 28 July 2009.
Recommended for acceptance by K. Kanov, V. Hayward, and S. Brewster.
For information on obtaining reprints of this article, please send e-mail to:
toh@computer.org, and reference IEEECS Log Number THSI-2008-11-0070.
Digital Object Identifier no. 10.1109/ToH.2009.35.
1939-1412/09/$25.00 2009 IEEE
Authorized licensd use limted to: IE Xplore. Downlade on May 13,20 at 1:4357 UTC from IE Xplore. Restricon aply.
3 3 matrix of vibrators that was explored for the purposes

of directing visual attention and displaying directional
information. Tactile cues that communicated the correct
stimulus direction significantly reduced RTs in a laboratory-based, visual change detection paradigm. The seat
display used by Van Erp et al. consisted of a 2 4 seat
matrix of vibrators that was used to present navigation
information during (simulated) driving. This seat vibration
approach significantly improved driver performance. Additional research has demonstrated that tactile-based
navigation cues made pilots and car drivers less vulnerable
to performance degradation under high workload conditions (see also [12]).
Several driver assistance systems communicate directional information to the driver, including crash avoidance
and navigation systems. For example, crash avoidance
systems may use visual or auditory directional warning
cues for the purpose of alerting drivers to the direction of
the crash threat so that they may respond appropriately
(e.g., brake, steer, or do nothing in the event of a false
alarm). For these systems, simple tactile displays indicating
only two directions (e.g., front-back warning or left-right
navigation signals) would seem less favorable than a
display that could communicate more precise directional
crash information (e.g., front, back, left, or right direction).
Fitch et al. [13] compared RTs and localization accuracy to
eight alert directions (i.e., the four cardinal and four oblique
directions) presented either via directional vibrations in a
car seat or via directional auditory warning via speakers on
the vehicle. Consistent with earlier studies employing two
directions, results indicated that tactile cues decreased RTs
and improved localization accuracy.
In summary, previous proof of concept-oriented
research clearly suggests that tactile displays may provide
a valuable, alternative means of providing information to the
driver. However, the practical issues associated with these
displays merit further consideration. For example, drivers
may have very different anthropometric characteristics and
driving postures, resulting in a variable relation between
Published by the IEEE CS, RAS, & CES
182
VOL. 2,
NO. 4,
Fig. 1. The 8 8 matrix of vibrator motors built into a foam layer of the
seat (shown without the final upholstery layer).
vibration location and the stimulated location on drivers

bodies. In addition, auditory, visual, and tactile sensitivities
decrease with age (i.e., detection threshold, spatial resolution, and temporal resolution [14], [15], [16], [17]). Hence,
tactile displays must strive to accommodate the wide range
of driver ages. Another practical issue is that vehicle
vibrations could potentially interfere with or mask the
presentation of tactile information.
The primary goal of the current study was to investigate
whether drivers are able to distinguish up to eight different
directions (i.e., the four cardinal and four oblique directions) indicated by vibrations in the seat pan while driving
under real traffic on both smooth and bumpy (or rough)
roads. In addition, since it may be important that tactile
stimuli be perceived under unexpected conditions for some
applications (e.g., crash avoidance systems), a surprise
stimulus was presented to drivers while driving after
completion of the main experiment.
It should be noted that the tactile seat design employed
in the current study was based on seat pressure distribution
data, expert judgment, and pilot studies. In addition, in a
proof of concept laboratory experiment preceding the
current study, various tactile parameters were tested to
optimize the design of the eight direction tactile seat
employed in the current research. Overall, results from this
earlier research indicated that the mean directional localization error was 23 degrees, and supported the broad utility
of a tactile cuing-based approach (based on the lack of
observed age or gender differences).
METHOD
Participants were seated on a tactile drivers seat in a

vehicle. While driving along the road, they received tactile
stimuli which were coded for various directions. Their task
was to detect these stimuli as quickly as possible and report
direction associated with the stimuli.
2.1 Apparatus
The seat was fitted with 64 vibrator motors in an 8 8 matrix
setup (see Fig. 1). This design enabled an examination of a
wide variety of tactile patterns and rhythms during the
development of the tactile chair seat. As indicated earlier, the
tactile seat design used in the current research was based on
Fig. 2. Output of a single vibrator motor: (a) acceleration as a function of

time and (b) power spectral density.
seat pressure distribution data, expert judgment, pilot

studies, and laboratory research.
The vibratory motors used in the current research are
commonly used for silent alarms (or vibration mode) in
cellular phones, and were purchased from Electronic
Goldmine (http://www.goldmine-elec.com). These motors
are based on the principle of a DC motor driving a shaft on
which an eccentric mass is attached. Because of the
externally moving eccentric mass, the vibrator motors
had to be built into a protective housing. This housing was
drilled in PVC rods with a length of 3 cm (1.2 inch), using
two diameters. The first diameter (at the lower part of the
rods) was designed to clamp the motor. The second
diameter was somewhat larger, to afford the rotor some
additional clearance. The motors were attached to the
housing using acrylic glue. The connection wires were
soldered to the motor. The wire mantle was encapsulated
in the glue to provide strain relief. Finally, the cylinder was
closed with a small lid.
A Bruel & Kjaer accelerometer and conditioning amplifier and Tektronix TDS3014 digital oscilloscope were used
to measure the vibrations of three individual vibrator
motors embedded in a piece of foam. The waveform was
very close to sinusoidal, as illustrated in Fig. 2. The
actuators vibrate with a frequency of about 140 Hz.
For the current study, the tactile seat was mounted in a
vehicle with a left-seated driver and a manual gear shift.
Based on a pilot study, the vibration intensity (i.e., the
actuator voltage) levels were set such that it was judged
that the intensity was high enough to make the stimuli
HOGEMA ET AL.: A TACTILE SEAT FOR DIRECTION CODING IN CAR DRIVING: FIELD EVALUATION
183
Fig. 3. Actuator group configurations (upper row is front, lower row is

back). During stimulus presentation, all tactors in a grayed area fired
in unison.
noticeable on bumpy (or rough) surfaces without making it

annoying on a smooth road surface.
2.2 Participants
Three females and five males participated in the experiment. Their average age was 37.4 years (standard deviation
9.2 years), and their average driving experience 26,000 km/
year (standard deviation 11,000 km/year). All participants
held a normal-type driving license (B).
The participants were researchers from TNO Human
Factors who were not actively involved in the tactile seat
project. Their professional expertise was in the following
areas:
.
.
.
.
traffic behavior (4),

physical ergonomics (2),
HCI (usability engineering) (1), and
perception/vision and imaging (1).
2.3 Stimulus Conditions

Fig. 3 shows the eight directions in which the stimuli
were presented: Front (F), Front-Right (FR), Right (R),
Back-Right (BR), Back (B), Back-Left (BL), Left (L), and
Front-Left (FL). During stimulus presentation, all tactors
in a grayed area shown in Fig. 3 were vibrated in unison.
For example, for the FL directional cue, the front leftmost
3 3 matrix within the 8 8 matrix of vibratory motors
was activated.
The temporal pattern consisted of three bursts with
duration of 250 ms each and a separation of 250 ms
between bursts.
2.4 Test Locations
The experiment was conducted in the vicinity of the TNO
location in Soesterberg, The Netherlands. All test runs were
conducted in real traffic under daytime, dry road, dry
weather, and off-peak traffic conditions.
As illustrated in Fig. 4, there were two main test sites. The
first main site was a rough brick road with a 30 km/h speed
limit. The road was straight and had a length of approximately 1.6 km. The second main site was on a motorway: a
smooth road with a speed limit of 120 km/h and that had a
length of approximately 7 km.
Fig. 4. Road scene of test locations: (a) brick road and (b) motorway.
The road between the two main test sites served as a

third, less formal test site. Given the meandering character
of this road and its somewhat higher traffic density, we did
not try to obtain a predetermined number of observations on
this road. The length of this road was approximately 2.3 km,
with speed limits of 80 and 50 km/h.
Prior to conducting the study, vibration measurements
were taken in the vehicle while driving on the test routes
using the following method. The sensor was attached to the
aluminum plate on which the chair was mounted, such that
vibrations were measured at the base of the seat. Note that
these are not the vibrations experienced by the driver, since
the frequency response of the chair is not included. The
variances of the vertical accelerations were 1:14 m2 =s4 on
the brick road and 0:38 m2 =s4 on the motorway. The spectral
distribution of the acceleration is shown in Fig. 5. For both
roads, the distribution has a maximum at 1.5 Hz and a
second lower peak around 10 Hz.
2.5 Procedure
First, participants received instruction for the experiment in
writing. They were informed that the tactile seat would
occasionally be activated. When this happened, they were
instructed to report verbally their perceived stimulus
direction from the eight possible stimulus directions.
Drivers were instructed to maintain the speed limit.
When necessary (due to other traffic, road, weather, or any
other conditions), participants adjusted their speed as
required. They were also instructed that they were
184
Fig. 5. Power spectral density of vertical acceleration of the base plate of

the drivers seat.
responsible for safe driving. Furthermore, they were told

that if they felt that the experimental task could not be
safely conducted, they were to ignore the experimental task.
Next, a 2-step training session was administered. First,
each of the eight directions was presented. Second, two
blocks of eight stimuli were administered, with each block
including all eight stimuli directions in a random order. This
training session was conducted with the vehicle stationary,
and the engine running. During the entire training session,
the interval between two consecutive stimuli was between 2
and 4 s (with a uniform random distribution).
On the two main test road sites, four blocks of trials were
administered, where each block consisted of all eight
stimuli directions presented in a random order. The interval
between the moment a response was given and the start of
the next stimulus was between 40 and 70 s (with a uniform
random distribution). This yielded 32 observations for each
participant on each test road site.
On the connection road, i.e., during transit from the
motorway to the brick road or vice versa, additional
measurements were carried out. Here, data were gathered
during a single passage of the road without the aim of
collecting a predetermined number of observations.
At the end of the main test, a surprise trial was
conducted. This occurred on a brick road when approaching the TNO garage at about 50 m before the driving
portion of the test was completed. The participants were not
prompted to respond to the unexpected FL stimulus (i.e.,
the feedback occurred spontaneously without experimenter
instruction). The FL stimulus was chosen because previous
laboratory research had suggested this may be the most
difficult stimulus direction to communicate (though localization performance was still relatively high at this location)
[18]. The participants were all surprised by the stimulus,
but their previous training made them sufficiently primed
to give a spontaneous response.
After the test drive, the participant completed a questionnaire that addressed drivers perceptions of their ability
to localize the various stimulus directions. Participants were
asked which pairs of directions they found to be most
difficult to distinguish. This allowed us to assess the extent
to which driver perceptions matched observed performance.
Drivers were asked to report the stimulus direction
verbally rather than via a manual response for the following
reasons: First, requiring a manual response for each of the
VOL. 2,
NO. 4,
eight stimulus directions (e.g., with a keypad) would have

more likely interfered with the primary driving task, which
might have compromised traffic safety. Second, using a
manual response may have introduced a directional bias,
since the manual response device would have necessarily
been positioned away from the drivers spatial frame of
reference.
The experimenter was seated in the rear, right passenger
seat, and used a tablet PC (operated using a pen) to
control the experiment. After the experimenter had started
the system in a given condition, the presentation of stimuli
was controlled by the PC. A countdown bar indicated the
time remaining to the next stimulus. This allowed the
experimenter to prepare to register the response as soon as
the participant began naming the direction. The experimenter tapped a button as soon as the verbal response was
initiated. Next, the experimenter recorded the reported
stimulus direction on a pop-up screen. This two-step
response recording method served to help minimize
experimenter RT and any potential RT response bias that
could occur if the experimenter was influenced by the
nature of the direction response (e.g., whether or not it was
correct). When road or traffic conditions impeded normal
driving, the experimenter temporarily halted the presentations of stimuli by means of a pause button.
The two driver performance measures obtained for each
trial were the direction (or localization) response and
localization reaction time. The latter was defined as the time
interval between stimulus onset and the moment the
experimenter tapped the button on the tablet PC that
marked the start of the verbal response. Thus, for reasons
described above, the localization speed measure includes the
response time of both the participant and the experimenter.
In summary, the driver experienced five different test
conditions during the study, which are listed below:
the training condition (always the first condition),
driving on the brick road,
driving on the motorway,
driving on the connection road (always before as
well as after the brick road condition), and
5. the surprise condition (always the last condition).
The order of presentation of the brick road and the
motorway was balanced across participants.
1.
2.
3.
4.
RESULTS
3.1 Response Direction

The confusion matrix for all participants across all five testing
conditions is shown in Fig. 6. Overall 93.3 percent of the
responses were correct, 6.4 percent were one segment (i.e.,
45 degrees) off, and 0.3 percent was two segments off (i.e.,
90 degrees). These latter incorrect responses were restricted
to the BL-BR stimulus-response pair. No incorrect responses
were obtained that were more than two segments off.
In the training condition, overall, 97.9 percent of the
responses were correct, and all errors were restricted to
one participant.
When considering only the brick road, connection road,
and motorway test conditions (i.e., ignoring the training
and surprise trial test conditions), 580 observations were
185
TABLE 1
Frequency Distribution of the Absolute Error of the Response
(Brick Road, Connection Road, and Motorway)
For FL or FR stimuli, the correct response frequency

was about 96 percent; with the remaining 4 percent
of responses being one segment off toward the rear
(responses left and right, respectively).
. Comparing the left and right stimulus directions, the
left direction has a lower performance than the right
direction (87.5 and 77.8 percent correct, respectively). For both these directions, errors are made
toward both front and back directions.
. The percentage correct for the BR direction was
similar to that obtained for the BL stimuli (91.6
and 93.2 percent, respectively). Errors made in the
BR directions were all to the right. Errors made in
the BL direction were to the left (4.1 percent) and
to the BR (2.7 percent) directions.
Results from the connection road were similar to that
observed under the brick road and motorway test conditions.
In the surprise trials, all participants detected the stimulus.
In four out of the eight cases, the correct FL response was
given. In the four remaining cases, a left response was given.
Thus, localization accuracy during the surprise trials was
lower than during the other conditions where participants
were expecting the stimulus (though it should be noted that
there were no errors of two segments or higher).
.
Fig. 6. Confusion matrix field trial: all subjects, all conditions (including
training and surprise trials). Numbers in the matrix are column
percentages; numbers above each column are numbers of stimuli.
available. Based on this subset of the test conditions, the

confusion matrix obtained is provided in Fig. 7, and the
frequencies of the absolute error of the response (expressed
in number of 45 degree segments) are presented in Table 1.
For this subset of data, the following observations can
be made:
.
The percentages correct were 91.4 percent for the

brick road and 93.8 percent for the motorway. (Note
that 256 data points were obtained for each of these
test conditions). A two-sided difference-of-proportions test showed that the difference between these
percentages was not significant (p 0:31).
The stimuli in the backward direction were always
identified correctly, whereas in the forward direction,
the correct response frequency was 97.3 percent (with
confusions occurring either as FL or FR responses).
Fig. 7. Confusion matrix field trial: all subjects, all driving conditions
(brick road, motorway, and connection road). Numbers in the matrix
are column percentages; numbers above each column are numbers
of stimuli).
3.2 Reaction Time

Due to technical problems, some of the response times
logged were too short or too long. For all test conditions
except the surprise trials, RTs shorter than 0.8 s or longer
than 3.98 s were excluded from the analysis. (Recall that
RTs included both the driver and the experimenter RTs.)
This yielded a loss of 2.8 percent of the RT observations.
An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was carried out on
the mean RT, using the test condition as the only
independent variable (i.e., observations were averaged
across stimulus directions). Thus, one RT per participant
for each of the five test conditions was used in the analysis.
The ANOVA results showed that there was no significant
effect of the test condition. Mean RTs in the training, brick
road, motorway, connection road, and surprise conditions
were 1.94, 1.85, 1.80, 1.79, and 2.49 seconds, respectively.
For the brick road and motorway conditions, the mean RT
was analyzed in an ANOVA, employing the within-subjects
variables of stimulus direction and road type (i.e., brick road
and motorway). The results revealed only a significant effect
of stimulus direction (F7; 49 8:1; p < 0:001), which is
shown in Fig. 8. A follow-up Tukey test showed the
following effects (p < 0:05):
186
VOL. 2,
NO. 4,
TABLE 2
Pairs of Directions that Were Judged Difficult to Distinguish
Fig. 8. Reaction time as a function of stimulus direction. Whiskers show

95 percent confidence intervals.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The response to the left stimulus was significantly

slower than all other stimuli directions except the FR.
Front was faster than FR and faster than FL.
Back was faster than FR and faster than FL.
The front and back directions did not differ
significantly from each other.
The FL and FR directions did not differ significantly
from each other.
The BL and BR directions did not differ significantly
from each other.
There was a significant difference between the left
and right directions.
The BL and BR directions did not differ significantly
from each other.
The effects of direction are symmetrical with respect
to the midsagittal plane, except for the left and right
directions.
3.3 Speed-Accuracy Trade-Off

To investigate the possibility of a speed-accuracy trade-off
interpretation of these results, a comparison was made of RT
and the percentage of correct responses for each stimulus
direction for all normal driving conditions (i.e., brick road,
motorway, and connection road). This comparison is shown
in Fig. 9, which indicates that incorrect responses took

longer than correct responses (arguing against a speedaccuracy trade-off interpretation of these results).
To further a possible speed-accuracy trade-off, a t-test
was carried out comparing the mean correct versus mean
incorrect RTs (where the mean correct and the mean
incorrect RT were calculated for each participant as input
for the t-test). Results indicated a significant effect of
response correctness (t6 3:4; p < 0:05), with mean correct RTs and incorrect RTs of 1.87 and 2.12 s, respectively.
Once again, the pattern of these results argue against a
speed-accuracy interpretation of these results.
3.4 Questionnaires
Participants were asked which direction(s) they found most
difficult to distinguish. In total, 24 pairs of directions were
mentioned. These pairs and their frequencies are presented in
Table 2. A corresponding table based on stimulus localization
accuracy data is shown in Table 3 (which includes data from
all test conditions). A comparison of Tables 2 and 3 indicates
that the four stimulus direction pairs reported as most
difficult to distinguish corresponded to the four stimulusresponse pairs with the highest number of confusions. Hence,
drivers appear to have a strong sense of their abilities to
localize the tactile cues employed in the experiment.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the drivers ability to localize tactile cues in this intraffic, field study was nearly perfect and virtually all
incorrect localization responses were off by only one
location segment (i.e., 45 degrees). These performance
levels are particularly noteworthy given that very little
TABLE 3
Frequency of Observed Stimulus-Response Pair Confusions
Fig. 9. Percentage of correct responses versus reaction time as a function

of stimulus direction (brick road, connection road, and motorway).
training was given. Furthermore, it should be noted that all

surprise stimuli were detected, and that all surprise trial
responses were either correct or within one location
segment (45 degrees) of the correct stimulus direction.
In addition, drivers subjective impressions of cases
where stimulus direction was more difficult to identify
corresponded well to observed stimulus confusions. In
terms of further opportunities for improving the tactile
cuing approach employed here, it should be noted that the
left direction had the longest RTs and highest rate of
incorrect responses.
Due to methodological differences relative to previous
research (e.g., the lack of a crash threat context, differences
in the number of directions examined), caution needs to be
exercised when comparing the absolute RT levels observed
in the current study to those observed in previous research,
or when interpreting the absolute RT levels observed in the
current study. For example, under real world driving
conditions, the driving context may limit the number of
viable crash threat directions which, together with the
presence of an actual crash threat, could be expected to
influence absolute RT levels. In any case, it should be noted
that under similar experimental conditions, Fitch et al. [13]
observed faster localization RTs (and improved localization
accuracy) with tactile relative to auditory alerts.
This experiment addresses three important practical
issues surrounding providing tactile information to drivers.
The first issue is related to the possible effect of driving
posture on both tactile signal detection and localization
performance. In the current study, drivers were wearing
their normal clothes and were continuously moving both
legs to operate the clutch, accelerator, and brake pedals. We
can conclude that these factors had no effect on tactile
signal detectability, since none of the 580 stimuli were
missed during the experiment. In addition, localization
accuracy was generally extremely high. The second
practical issue is related to whether the vehicle and whole
body vibrations that occur during real world driving would
degrade tactile perception. Again, we can conclude that
there are no indications that this was the case, since the
results indicated that the tactile cuing approach worked
consistently well across different road surfaces. That is,
even though road vibrations on the brick road were much
stronger than those on the motorway, no differences were
found between these two road types in terms of either
localization accuracy or speed (response time). This
suggests that the intensity and frequency content of the
tactile stimuli were such that road vibrations were of no
influence. The final practical issue is related to whether
drivers could maintain tactile detection and localization
performance under surprise, unexpected conditions. Results were again promising, indicating that all surprise trial
stimuli were detected and were reported to be within 45
degrees of the correct stimulus direction.
In summary, these results provide further support for
the feasibility of the concept of vibrotactile directional
warnings in a drivers seat cushion (or seat pan), and
indicate that drivers can use tactile cues in an intuitive
manner to derive directional information. Consequently,
a logical next step is to investigate nave (as opposed to
expert) driver performance and acceptance under conditions where the haptic seat is functioning as a part of an
on-board (rather than phantom) vehicle system.
187
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work described in this paper was sponsored by General
Motors.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
J.B.F. Van Erp, E.L. Groen, J.E. Bos, and H.A.H.C. Van Veen,
A Tactile Cockpit Instrument Supports the Control of SelfMotion During Spatial Disorientation, Human Factors, vol. 48,
no. 2, pp. 219-228, 2006.
J.B.F. Van Erp and H.A.H.C. Van Veen, Touch Down: The Effect
of Artificial Touch Cues on Orientation in Microgravity,
Neuroscience Letters, vol. 404, pp. 78-82, 2006.
J.B.F. Van Erp, H.A.H.C. Van Veen, C. Jansen, and T. Dobbins,
Waypoint Navigation with a Vibrotactile Waist Belt, ACM
Trans. Applied Perception, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 106-117, 2005.
M.H. Martens and W. Van Winsum, Effects of Speech versus
Tactile Support Messages on Driving Behaviour and Workload,
Proc. 17th Intl Technical Conf. Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, 2001.
M. Enriquez and K.E. MacLean, Impact of Haptic Warning Signal
Reliability in a Time-and-Safety-Critical Task, Proc. 12th Intl
Symp. Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environments and Teleoperated
Systems (HAPTICS 04), pp. 407-414, 2004.
C. Ho, Multisensory Aspects of the Spatial Cuing of Driver
Attention, PhD thesis, Univ. of Oxford, 2006.
C. Ho, N. Reed, and C. Spence, Assessing the Effectiveness of
Intuitive Vibrotactile Warning Signals in Preventing Front-toRear-End Collisions in a Driving Simulator, Accident Analysis and
Prevention, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 988-996, 2006.
C. Ho, H.Z. Tan, and C. Spence, Using Spatial Vibrotactile
Cues to Direct Visual Attention in Driving Scenes, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 8, no. 6,
pp. 397-412, 2005.
J.J. Scott and R. Gray, A Comparison of Tactile, Visual, and
Auditory Warnings for Rear-End Collision Prevention in Simulated Driving, Human Factors, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 264-275, 2008.
H.Z. Tan, R. Gray, J.J. Young, and R. Traylor, A Haptic Back
Display for Attentional and Directional Cueing, Haptics-e, vol. 3,
no. 1, 2003.
J.B.F. Van Erp, J.A. Veltman, H.A.H.C. Van Veen, and A.B.
Oving, Tactile Torso Display as Countermeasure to Reduce
Night Vision Goggles Induced Drift, Proc. RTO Meeting Spatial
Disorientation in Military Vehicles: Causes, Consequences and Cures,
vol. 86, pp. 49-1-49-8, 2003.
J.B.F. Van Erp and H.A.H.C. Van Veen, Vibrotactile In-Vehicle
Navigation System, Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and
Behaviour, vol. 7, pp. 247-256, 2004.
G.M. Fitch, R.J. Kiefer, J.M. Hankey, and B.M. Kleiner, Toward
Developing an Approach for Alerting Drivers to the Direction of a
Crash Threat, Human Factors, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 710-720, 2007.
J.C. Stevens and K.K. Choo, Spatial Acuity of the Body Surface
over the Life Span, Somatosensory and Motor Research, vol. 13,
no. 2, pp. 153-166, 1996.
J.C. Stevens, L.A. Cruz, L.E. Marks, and S. Lakatos, A
Multimodal Assessment of Sensory Thresholds in Aging,
J. Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences,
vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 263-272, 1998.
C.L. Van Doren, G.A. Gescheider, and R.T. Verrillo, Vibrotactile
Temporal Gap Detection as a Function of Age, J. Acoustical Soc. of
Am., vol. 87, no. 5, pp. 2201-2206, 1990.
R.T. Verrillo, The Effects of Aging on the Sense of Touch,
Sensory Research: Multimodal Perspectives, R.T. Verrillo, ed., pp. 285298, Erlbaum, 1993.
S.C. De Vries, J.B.F. Van Erp, and R.J. Kiefer, Direction Coding
Using a Tactile Chair, Applied Ergonomics, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 477484, 2009.
188
VOL. 2,
NO. 4,
Jeroen H. Hogema received the masters

degree in electrical engineering from Twente
University in 1990. He is currently a research
scientist in the Traffic Behaviour Department in
TNO Human Factors, Soesterberg, The Netherlands. His research interests include the development and evaluation of Advanced Driver
Assistance Systems and in-driver modeling.
Jan B.F. Van Erp received the masters degree

in experimental psychology in 1994 from Leiden
University, The Netherlands, and the PhD
degree from Utrecht University in 2007. His
PhD thesis was on tactile perception. He is
currently the chief scientist in the Human
Interfaces Department at TNO Human Factors.
Sjoerd C. De Vries received the masters degree

in physics and the PhD degree from Utrecht
University, The Netherlands, in 1989 and 1994,
respectively. His PhD thesis was on stereoscopic
perception of 3D shapes. He is currently a
research scientist in the Perception and Simulation Department at TNO Human Factors. His
research interests include visual displays for
cockpits and UAVs, HMDs, 3D audio, tactile
displays, and camera systems.
Raymond J. Kiefer received the BS degree in

mathematics and psychology from the University
of Michigan in 1982, and the MA degree and the
PhD degree in cognitive processes from the
Department of Psychology at Wayne State
University in 1985 and 1988, respectively. For
10 years, he was with the Human Factors
Department at General Motors. For the past
decade, he has supported crash avoidance
system development in the General Motors
Safety and Structure Integration Center.
. For more information on this or any other computing topic,

please visit our Digital Library at www.computer.org/publications/dlib.

A Tactile Seat For Direction Coding in Car Driving Field Evaluation-8eF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Tactile Seat For Direction Coding in Car Driving Field Evaluation-8eF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON HAPTICS,