An Ergonomic Study on the Operation Method and In-Vehicle Location of an Automotive Electronic Gearshift
Source abstract
Abstract
This study conducted a survey to identify the best ergonomic operation method, in-vehicle location, and the effects of their combination on electronic gearshifts. A total of 15 different design alternatives were derived through combinations of three operation methods (lever slide, button push, and dial rotation) and five in-vehicle locations (left wheel spoke, right wheel spoke, upper center fascia, lower center fascia, and center console). A total of 40 respondents with diverse ages and driving experiences evaluated the 15 different design alternatives across nine ergonomic evaluation measures (accuracy, efficiency, rapidity, learnability, intuitiveness, safety, preference, memorability, and satisfaction). The study results indicated that: (1) the lever slide and button push were superior to dial rotation for the operation method; (2) the lower center facia and center console were superior for the in-vehicle location, and (3) implementing the lever slide method in the center console location was found to lead to the best combination of the operation method and in-vehicle location, while implementing the button push method in the right wheel spoke or upper center fascia location also showed relative superiority. The study findings are expected to contribute to the ergonomic design of electronic gearshifts that can enhance the driver’s gear-shifting experience, thereby improving driving performance and safety.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders · Human-Automation Interaction and Safety · Ergonomics and Human Factors
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Safety Engineering, Incheon National University, Incheon 22012, Republic of Korea
Funding
Incheon National University
References (55)
Show source-provided references
1. Design of highly integrated mechatronic gear selector levers for automotive shift-by-wire systems
2. Kwon, K., Kang, J., and Kang, S. (2015, January 28–30). Electronic Gearshift Pattern Application using Three Axis Hall Sensor. Proceedings of the Transactions of the Korean Society of Automotive Engineers 2015 Spring Conference, Gwangju, Korea.
3. Shift-by-wire system for Lexus RWD vehicles10.4271/2017-01-1094 ↗
4. Field study investigating gear shifter usability in car rental scenario
5. Cho, H. (2020, January 1–4). Calibration algorithm for SBW position detection. Proceedings of the Transactions of the Korean Society of Automotive Engineers 2020 Spring Conference, Samcheok, Korea.
6. (2023, December 28). When It Comes to Automatic Shifters, It’s Proceed with Caution. Available online: https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/automatic-shifters-proceed-with-caution.
7. (2023, December 28). Can Unfamiliarity with a Shifter-Gear Lever Cause a Tragedy?. Available online: https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/02/can-unfamiliarity-with-a-gear-shift-lever-cause-a-tragedy/index.htm.
8. Andersson, L., and Lenshof, S. (2015). Development of an Intuitive Shift-by-Wire Gear Selector. [Bachelor’s Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology].
9. Bladfält, S., Grane, C., and Bengtsson, P. (2020). Comparison of Usability between Gear Shifters with Varied Visual and Haptic Patterns and Complexities. Multimodal Technol. Interact., 4.10.3390/mti4020024 ↗
10. Choi, G., Kim, H., Jeong, Y., Son, M., and Beck, D. (2022). A Study on Ergonomic Layout of Automotive Electronic Shift Buttons. Appl. Sci., 12.10.3390/app12189222 ↗
11. New Zealand survey of driver exposure to risk of accidents10.1016/0001-4575(82)90020-3 ↗
12. Office for Government Policy Coordination (2023, December 28). Framework Act on Youth, Article 3 (1). Available online: https://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/lawView.do?hseq=54732&lang=ENG.
13. Michon, J.A. (1993). Generic Intelligent Driver Support, CRC Press.
14. De Craen, S., Twisk, D., Hagenzieker, M., Elffers, H., and Brookhuis, K. (2007, January 27–30). Do young novice drivers overestimate their driving skills. Proceedings of the Young Researchers Seminar in SWOW, Brno, Czech Republic.
15. Understanding how drivers learn to anticipate risk on the road: A laboratory experiment of affective anticipation of road hazards10.1016/j.aap.2012.08.008 ↗
16. A Comprehensive Review of Driver’s Attention and the Evaluation Methods10.52547/crpase.7.3.2392 ↗
17. Khan, M.Q., and Lee, S. (2019). Gaze and eye tracking: Techniques and applications in ADAS. Sensors, 19.10.3390/s19245540 ↗
18. Evaluating driver cognitive distraction by eye tracking: From simulator to driving
19. Road safety and distraction, results from a responsibility case-control study among a sample of road users interviewed at the emergency room10.1016/j.aap.2018.09.032 ↗
20. Driver’s lane keeping ability with eyes off road: Insights from a naturalistic study10.1016/j.aap.2012.06.013 ↗
21. Singh, J. (2020, January 3–5). Learning based driver drowsiness detection model. Proceedings of the 2020 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Sustainable Systems (ICISS), Coimbatore, India.10.1109/ICISS49785.2020.9316131 ↗
22. Vermeeren, A.P., Law, E.L.-C., Roto, V., Obrist, M., Hoonhout, J., and Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. (2010, January 16–20). User experience evaluation methods: Current state and development needs. Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, Reykjavik, Iceland.10.1145/1868914.1868973 ↗
23. Yogasara, T., Popovic, V., Kraal, B., and Chamorro-Koc, M. (November, January 31). General characteristics of anticipated user experience (AUX) with interactive products. Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Design Research: Diversity and Unity (IASDR 2011), Delft, The Netherlands.
24. Chattratichart, J., and Jordan, P. (2003, January 1–5). Simulating ‘Lived’ User Experience-Virtual Immersion and Inclusive Design. Proceedings of the IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT ’03), Zurich, Switzerland.
25. Sánchez-Adame, L.M., Urquiza-Yllescas, J.F., and Mendoza, S. (2020). Measuring anticipated and episodic UX of tasks in social networks. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10228199 ↗
26. Lipp, K. (2023, December 28). User Experience beyond Usability. User Behavior 2012, pp. 13–19. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254530996_User_Experience_Beyond_Usability.
27. Eilu, E. (2019). Anticipated User Experience (AUX) Framework for Implementing Electronic Participation in a Developing Country Context. [Ph.D. Thesis, Makarere University].
28. Tonnis, M., Broy, V., and Klinker, G. (2006, January 25–26). A survey of challenges related to the design of 3d user interfaces for car drivers. Proceedings of the 3D User Interfaces Conference (3DUI’06), Alexandria, VA, USA.
29. Bhise, V.D. (2011). Ergonomics in the Automotive Design Process, CRC Press.
30. Naddeo, A., Cappetti, N., and Ippolito, O. (2014). Dashboard Reachability and Usability Tests: A Cheap and Effective Method for Drivers’ Comfort Rating, SAE International. SAE Technical Paper.10.4271/2014-01-0455 ↗
31. Mirror or camera? Acceptance and valuation of camera-monitor systems
32. A technique for the measurement of attitudes
33. Likert scale: Explored and explained10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975 ↗
34. Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, Sage. [3rd ed.].
35. (2023, December 28). Lawsuits Blame Range Rover Gear Shifter for Deadly Rollaway. Available online: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/range-rover-lawsuits-gear-shifter-deadly-rollaway.
36. Wickens, C.D., Gordon, S.E., Liu, Y., and Lee, J. (2004). An Introduction to Human Factors Engineering, Pearson Prentice Hall.
37. Sanders, M.S., and McCormick, E.J. (1993). Human Factors in Engineering and Design, McGraw Hill. Industrial Robot: An International Journal.
38. Ottesen, J.L. (2006). Concentrated window analysis results. AACE Int. Trans., C111.
39. Driving comfort, enjoyment and acceptance of automated driving–effects of drivers’ age and driving style familiarity10.1080/00140139.2018.1441448 ↗
40. Adaptation to the driving simulator and prediction of the braking time performance, with and without distraction, in older adults and middle-aged adults10.1016/j.clinsp.2023.100168 ↗
41. Delmas, M., Camps, V., and Lemercier, C. (2023). Should my automated car drive as I do? Investigating speed preferences of drivengers in various driving conditions. PLoS ONE, 18.10.1371/journal.pone.0281702 ↗
42. The neural correlates of sex differences in left–right confusion10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.066 ↗
43. Touch screen performance by individuals with and without motor control disabilities10.1016/j.apergo.2012.08.004 ↗
44. Effects of quantity and size of buttons of in-vehicle touch screen on drivers’ eye glance behavior10.1080/10447318.2017.1415688 ↗
45. The safety of vehicles imported from right-hand-drive vehicle configuration countries when operated in a left-hand-drive vehicle environment10.1016/j.aap.2008.10.004 ↗
46. Chevalot, N., and Wang, X. (2004). An experimental investigation of the discomfort of arm reaching movements in a seated position. SAE Trans., 98–103.10.4271/2004-01-2141 ↗
47. Stevens, A., Quimby, A., Board, A., Kersloot, T., and Burns, P. (2002). Design Guidelines for Safety of In-Vehicle Information Systems, TRL Limited.
48. Will products look more attractive when presented separately or together?10.1086/209534 ↗
49. Proactive interference, accessibility bias, and process dissociations: Valid subject reports of memory10.1037/0278-7393.27.3.686 ↗
50. Brown, C.L., and Feinberg, F. (2004). Bolstering: How Does Choice Distort Product Evaluations?, The University of Michigan. Working paper.
51. Green, P., Paelke, G., and Clack, K. (1989). Instrument Panel Controls in Sedans: What Drivers Prefer and Why, The University of Michigan.
52. Air bag interaction with and injury potential from common steering control devices
53. Effects of target location, stature and hand grip type on in-vehicle reach discomfort10.1080/00140139.2011.564312 ↗
54. Tideman, M., van der Voort, M.C., and van Houten, F.J. (2004, January 14–17). Design and evaluation of a virtual gearshift application. Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Parma, Italy.
55. Salamin, P., Thalmann, D., and Vexo, F. (2006, January 3–6). Comfortable manipulation of a virtual gearshift prototype with haptic feedback. Proceedings of the EuroHaptics ’06, Paris, France.