The role of priming in grammatical acceptability judgements for native versus non-native speakers: Effects of intelligibility.

Comprehenders frequently need to adapt to linguistic variability between talkers and dialects. Previous research has shown, given repeated exposure to quasi-grammatical structures, comprehenders begin to perceive them as more grammatical (Luka & Barsalou 2005, Luka & Choi 2012). We examined whether grammatical acceptability judgements differ for native versus non-native speech. In an exposure phase, native English speakers listened to, retyped, and rated the grammaticality of quasi-grammatical sentences (e.g., What Emily is thankful for is that she is here) spoken by a native or non-native speaker. In a subsequent test phase, participants rated additional sentences, some of which had the same structure as exposure sentences. Participants rated native-accented sentences as more grammatical, demonstrating a role for talker identity in perceptions of grammaticality. Furthermore, structures previously heard during the exposure phase were rated as more grammatical than novel unprimed structures, but only for the native speaker. Subset analyses suggest this effect is driven by speaker intelligibility, which holds implications for communication between native and non-native speakers.

Assessing the visual and cognitive demands of in-vehicle information systems.

BACKGROUND: New automobiles provide a variety of features that allow motorists to perform a plethora of secondary tasks unrelated to the primary task of driving. Despite their ubiquity, surprisingly little is known about how these complex multimodal in-vehicle information systems (IVIS) interactions impact a driver's workload. RESULTS: The current research sought to address three interrelated questions concerning this knowledge gap: (1) Are some task types more impairing than others? (2) Are some modes of interaction more distracting than others? (3) Are IVIS interactions easier to perform in some vehicles than others? Depending on the availability of the IVIS features in each vehicle, our testing involved an assessment of up to four task types (audio entertainment, calling and dialing, text messaging, and navigation) and up to three modes of interaction (e.g., center stack, auditory vocal, and the center console). The data collected from each participant provided a measure of cognitive demand, a measure of visual/manual demand, a subjective workload measure, and a measure of the time it took to complete the different tasks. The research provides empirical evidence that the workload experienced by drivers systematically varied as a function of the different tasks, modes of interaction, and vehicles that we evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: This objective assessment suggests that many of these IVIS features are too distracting to be enabled while the vehicle is in motion. Greater consideration should be given to what interactions should be available to the driver when the vehicle is in motion rather than to what IVIS features and functions could be available to motorists.

Visual and Cognitive Demands of CarPlay, Android Auto, and Five Native Infotainment Systems.

OBJECTIVE: The present research compared and contrasted the workload associated with using in-vehicle information systems commonly available in five different automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) with that of CarPlay and Android Auto when used in the same vehicles. BACKGROUND: A growing trend is to provide access to portable smartphone-based systems (e.g., CarPlay and Android Auto) that support an expansion of various in-vehicle infotainment system features and functions. METHOD/RESULTS: The study involved on-road testing of 24 participants in each configuration of five vehicles crossed with the three different infotainment systems: the embedded portion of the native OEM systems, CarPlay, and Android Auto. Our analysis found that workload was significantly greater for the embedded portion of the native OEM systems than for CarPlay and Android Auto. The strengths and weaknesses of each CarPlay and Android Auto traded off in such a way that the overall demand associated with using the two systems did not differ. CONCLUSION: CarPlay and Android Auto provided more functionality and resulted in lower levels of workload than the embedded portion of the native OEM infotainment systems. APPLICATION: Potential applications of this research include refinements to CarPlay and Android Auto to address variations in workload as a function of task type, the modality of interaction, and OEM implementation of the system.