Evaluating User Experience and Simulator Sickness in a Driving Simulator Evaluation of a Traffic-Support Mobile Application
Source abstract
Abstract
Mobile phone use can distract drivers; however, mobile applications may also improve safety by delivering timely traffic and cooperative intelligent transport system warnings. This pilot study evaluated the user experience of the DARS Traffic Plus (DT+) mobile application and examined simulator sickness and affective burden during its use in a professional driving simulator. Thirty-nine participants were recruited and thirty-three completed all scenarios in a within-subject, counterbalanced design. Following a familiarization scenario, participants completed two comparable driving scenarios: one without DT+ support (S1) and one with DT+ support (S2). User experience was assessed using the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ), the meCUE 2.0 questionnaire based on the component model of user experience, and a post-interview, while simulator sickness and participant state were measured using the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ), Fast Motion Sickness Scale (FMS), and Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), complemented by exploratory eye-tracking observations. Both UEQ and meCUE 2.0 indicated positive user experience, with generally higher ratings in scenario S2 using the DT+ mobile application. UEQ showed a significant difference for Perspicuity, and meCUE 2.0 showed significantly higher scores for usefulness, visual aesthetics, commitment, intention to use, product loyalty, and overall evaluation. SSQ and FMS showed that simulator sickness effects occurred in a subset of participants. PANAS revealed no significant change in positive affect, while negative affect decreased significantly by the end of the evaluation. The findings suggest that DT+ was positively experienced in the simulator setting and that combining user experience measures with sickness monitoring is useful in simulator-based evaluation of driving-related mobile applications.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Human-Automation Interaction and Safety · Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts · Mind wandering and attention
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Tržaška cesta 25, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering, Aškerčeva cesta 12, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Funding
Slovenian Research Agency
References (36)
Show source-provided references
1. Reagan, I. (2024, June 29). Smartphones Lead to Distraction. Could They Also Prevent It?. Available online: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/smartphones-lead-to-distraction-could-they-also-prevent-it.
2. The Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2010 (Revised)10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.06.011 ↗
3. Owens, J.M., Dingus, T.A., Guo, F., Fang, Y., Perez, M., and McClafferty, J. (2018). Crash Risk of Cell Phone Use While Driving: A Case-Crossover Analysis of Naturalistic Driving Data (Technical Report), AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
4. Cescon, M., and Peruzzini, M. (2026). Evaluating UX and Usability in Automotive Human–Machine Interfaces: A Systematic Review. Appl. Sci., 16.10.3390/app16073437 ↗
5. The effects of passive mobile phone interaction on situation awareness and driving performance
6. Evaluating the effects of motion cues in virtual truck driver training10.1177/03611981241283457 ↗
7. (2026, June 08). About C-ITS|CAR 2 CAR Communication Consortium. Available online: https://www.car-2-car.org/about-c-its/.
8. (2024, June 17). DARS d.d. Available online: https://www.dars.si/.
9. Systematic Review of Driving Simulator Validation Studies10.1016/j.ssci.2019.04.004 ↗
10. Morales-Alvarez, W., Certad, N., Tadjine, H.H., and Olaverri-Monreal, C. (2022). Automated Driving Systems: Impact of Haptic Guidance on Driving Performance after a Take Over Request. Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Aachen, Germany, 4–9 June 2022, IEEE.10.1109/IV51971.2022.9827419 ↗
11. Reading, Typing, and Driving: How Interactions with in-Vehicle Systems Degrade Driving Performance10.1016/j.trf.2014.06.001 ↗
12. Study on a Multi-Factor Lane-Changing Risk Resilience Assessment Model Based on Genetic Algorithm and Fault Tree Analysis10.1016/j.aap.2026.108443 ↗
13. A Novel Throttle-Based Self-Stabilizing Control Scheme Integrated into an Anisotropic Continuum Model to Mitigate Cyber-Attacks in Connected Vehicle Scenarios10.1016/j.chaos.2025.117319 ↗
14. A Review of Driving Simulation Technology and Applications10.1109/OJVT.2020.3036582 ↗
15. Understanding the Impacts of Mobile Phone Distraction on Driving Performance: A Systematic Review10.1016/j.trc.2016.10.006 ↗
16. The Influence of Drinking, Texting, and Eating on Simulated Driving Performance10.1080/15389588.2014.920953 ↗
17. Which Smartphone’s Apps May Contribute to Road Safety? An AHP Model to Evaluate Experts’ Opinions10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.06.004 ↗
18. Simulator Sickness during Driving Simulation Studies10.1016/j.aap.2009.04.013 ↗
19. The Best Way to Assess Visually Induced Motion Sickness in a Fixed-Base Driving Simulator10.1016/j.trf.2017.05.005 ↗
20. Validating an Efficient Method to Quantify Motion Sickness10.1177/0018720811403736 ↗
21. Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An Enhanced Method for Quantifying Simulator Sickness10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3 ↗
22. Lee, J. (2011). Simulator and Scenario Factors Influencing Simulator Sickness, CRC Press.
23. The Adaptation Period to a Driving Simulator10.1016/j.trf.2012.12.007 ↗
24. Impact of In-Vehicle Displays Location Preferences on Drivers’ Performance and Gaze10.1109/TITS.2014.2319591 ↗
25. Using Eye-Tracking Data to Predict Situation Awareness in Real Time During Takeover Transitions in Conditionally Automated Driving10.1109/TITS.2021.3069776 ↗
26. El Hamdani, S., Bouchner, P., Kunclova, T., and Lehet, D. (2023). The Impact of Physical Motion Cues on Driver Braking Performance: A Clinical Study Using Driving Simulator and Eye Tracker. Sensors, 23.10.3390/s23010042 ↗
27. User Experience & Usability of Driving: A Bibliometric Analysis of 2000–201910.1080/10447318.2020.1860516 ↗
28. Rebelo, F., and Soares, M. (2016). Criteria Based Approach to Assess the User Experience of Driving Information Proactive System: Integration of Guidelines, Heuristic Mapping and Case Study. Proceedings of the Advances in Ergonomics in Design, Springer International Publishing.
29. Where’s My Button? Evaluating the User Experience of Surface Haptics in Featureless Automotive User Interfaces10.1109/TOH.2021.3131058 ↗
30. Pitts, M.J., Skrypchuk, L., Attridge, A., and Williams, M.A. (2014). Comparing the User Experience of Touchscreen Technologies in an Automotive Application. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Association for Computing Machinery.10.1145/2667317.2667418 ↗
31. (2026, June 08). The Global Leader in Human Insight AI. Available online: https://smarteye.se/.
32. Brousseau, B., Rose, J., and Eizenman, M. (2018). SmartEye: An Accurate Infrared Eye Tracking System for Smartphones. Proceedings of the 2018 9th IEEE Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics & Mobile Communication Conference (UEMCON), New York, NY, USA, 8–10 November 2018, IEEE.10.1109/UEMCON.2018.8796799 ↗
33. Laugwitz, B., Held, T., and Schrepp, M. (2008). Construction and Evaluation of a User Experience Questionnaire. Proceedings of the 4th Symposium of the Workgroup Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Engineering of the Austrian Computer Society on HCI and Usability for Education and Work, Springer.10.1007/978-3-540-89350-9_6 ↗
34. Marcus, A., and Wang, W. (2018). The MeCUE Questionnaire (2.0): Meeting Five Basic Requirements for Lean and Standardized UX Assessment. Proceedings of the Design, User Experience, and Usability: Theory and Practice, Springer International Publishing.
35. Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 ↗
36. Schneider, T., Hois, J., Rosenstein, A., Ghellal, S., Theofanou-Fülbier, D., and Gerlicher, A.R.S. (2021). ExplAIn Yourself! Transparency for Positive UX in Autonomous Driving. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Yokohama Japan, 8–13 May 2021, ACM.10.1145/3411764.3446647 ↗