Texting while driving: is speech-based text entry less risky than handheld text entry?

Research indicates that using a cell phone to talk or text while maneuvering a vehicle impairs driving performance. However, few published studies directly compare the distracting effects of texting using a hands-free (i.e., speech-based interface) versus handheld cell phone, which is an important issue for legislation, automotive interface design and driving safety training. This study compared the effect of speech-based versus handheld text entries on simulated driving performance by asking participants to perform a car following task while controlling the duration of a secondary text-entry task. Results showed that both speech-based and handheld text entries impaired driving performance relative to the drive-only condition by causing more variation in speed and lane position. Handheld text entry also increased the brake response time and increased variation in headway distance. Text entry using a speech-based cell phone was less detrimental to driving performance than handheld text entry. Nevertheless, the speech-based text entry task still significantly impaired driving compared to the drive-only condition. These results suggest that speech-based text entry disrupts driving, but reduces the level of performance interference compared to text entry with a handheld device. In addition, the difference in the distraction effect caused by speech-based and handheld text entry is not simply due to the difference in task duration.

Survey of U.S. Army soldiers' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding personal protection measures to prevent arthropod-related diseases and nuisance bites.

This study examined U.S. Army soldiers' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding personal protection measures (PPMs) to prevent arthropod-related diseases and nuisance bites. Soldiers attending 1 of 13 U.S. Army training courses either completed a written questionnaire (N = 1,007) or participated in a group interview (N = 65). Respondents primarily used repellents to prevent nuisance insect bites (55%) rather than to prevent disease (38.7%). Less than one-third correctly identified the military-issue repellents to be used on skin (31.7%) or clothing (26.1%). More than half (57.6%) thought that commercial products were better than military-issue repellents, but most (74.2%) reported that they did not have enough or any information about the U.S. military's system of PPMs. Soldiers have poor knowledge of U.S. military doctrine regarding PPMs and still prefer to use commercial products. A focused strategy to ensure the appropriate use of PPMs by service members should be developed, implemented, and evaluated.