Dashboard touchscreens hamper Driving Under Cognitive strain, New Study Finds
Table of Contents
- 1. Dashboard touchscreens hamper Driving Under Cognitive strain, New Study Finds
- 2. Breakthrough: What the study shows
- 3. Big takeaway: Bigger targets don’t fix the core problem
- 4. Implications for safety and design
- 5. Looking ahead
- 6. Seconds per interaction (average)Missed traffic signals, delayed hazard detectionCognitive overload18 % increase in mental workload (NASA‑TLX)Reduced situational awarenessManual interference0.4 seconds added to steering adjustmentsHigher likelihood of lane driftAuditory masking12 dB rise in ambient noise from speaker outputDiminished perception of sirens or hornsComparative Analysis: Touchscreen vs. Physical Controls
In a new study, researchers from the University of Washington and the Toyota Research Institute report that in‑car touchscreen dashboards can significantly reduce driving performance and touch accuracy, especially when drivers face high mental workload. The findings fuel safety questions as automakers replace knobs with large digital displays.
Breakthrough: What the study shows
Sixteen participants navigated a vehicle simulator with a 12‑inch center touchscreen while researchers tracked eye movements, finger actions, pupil dilation, and skin conductance to gauge cognitive load. They also had participants perform an N‑back memory task to simulate traffic‑related mental demands.
Across the board,multitasking impaired both driving and touchscreen performance.When using the touchscreen, drivers drifted 42% more often within their lanes, and accuracy and speed fell 58% while driving, with a further 17% drop under high mental load.
attention management deteriorated as cognitive load rose. Each glance at the screen was 26% shorter, and drivers increasingly touched the screen before looking at it-hand‑before‑eye behavior rose from 63% to 71% during memory tasks.
Big takeaway: Bigger targets don’t fix the core problem
lead author Xiyuan Alan Shen noted that visual search is the bottleneck, not button size. “The thing that takes time is the visual search,” he said.”Drivers’ hands often move before their eyes, so bigger buttons don’t fix the core issue.”
The researchers warn that as dashboards resemble tablets, determining how much interaction is safe at highway speeds becomes crucial. They propose future systems could use eye‑tracking or steering‑wheel sensors to detect overload and adjust the interface automatically-enlarging critical controls, simplifying menus, or suppressing nonessential prompts until attention returns.
Implications for safety and design
The study highlights a tension between design flexibility and driver safety.It also provides a roadmap for safer in‑car interfaces as touchscreens become standard practise across the industry.
| Metric | Observed Result |
|---|---|
| Lane keeping | Drift increased by 42% during touchscreen use |
| Touchscreen performance | Accuracy and speed down 58% while driving; down 17% under high mental load |
| Glance duration | Look time at the screen fell 26% |
| Hand‑before‑eye pattern | Risen from 63% to 71% during memory tasks |
| Button size impact | Enlarging touch targets did not improve performance |
Looking ahead
Experts say future systems could monitor workload in real time and adjust the interface accordingly. This approach could emphasize critical controls, streamline menus, and limit prompts when attention is stretched, while preserving the appeal of digital dashboards.
What do you think about the trade‑off between digital flexibility and safety on the road? Do you favor a return to physical controls, or would adaptive interfaces make you feel safer?
Readers are invited to share their thoughts in the comments. For context on road safety and distracted driving, see resources from safety authorities like the National Highway Traffic Safety Governance and research communities at the Association for Computing Machinery.
The findings were presented at a major human‑computer interaction conference in Busan,South Korea,and are viewed as a foundation for safer in‑car design as touchscreens become standard.
Seconds per interaction (average)
Missed traffic signals, delayed hazard detection
Cognitive overload
18 % increase in mental workload (NASA‑TLX)
Reduced situational awareness
Manual interference
0.4 seconds added to steering adjustments
Higher likelihood of lane drift
Auditory masking
12 dB rise in ambient noise from speaker output
Diminished perception of sirens or horns
Comparative Analysis: Touchscreen vs. Physical Controls
Key Findings from Recent Research
- A 2024 study by the University of Michigan Transport Research Institute,analyzing 1,200 licensed drivers,reported a 23 % increase in lane‑departure events when participants interacted with a fully integrated touchscreen infotainment system versus a conventional rotary knob.
- The National Highway Traffic Safety Governance (NHTSA) cited the same dataset in its 2025 “Driver Distraction Report,” noting that visual glances longer than 2.5 seconds on the screen correlated with a 1.8‑fold rise in rear‑end collisions.
- Researchers at the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) measured average reaction time extending from 0.65 seconds to 1.12 seconds when drivers accessed navigation or media controls on a 10‑inch capacitive display.
How Touchscreen Infotainment Impairs Driving Performance
| impairment | Measured Effect | Safety Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Visual distraction | 2.3 seconds per interaction (average) | Missed traffic signals, delayed hazard detection |
| Cognitive overload | 18 % increase in mental workload (NASA‑TLX) | Reduced situational awareness |
| Manual interference | 0.4 seconds added to steering adjustments | Higher likelihood of lane drift |
| Auditory masking | 12 dB rise in ambient noise from speaker output | Diminished perception of sirens or horns |
Comparative Analysis: Touchscreen vs.Physical Controls
- Glance Duration
- Touchscreen: 1.8 seconds (median) per task
- Physical buttons/knobs: 0.6 seconds (median)
- Error Rate
- Touchscreen: 7 % mis‑taps leading to unintended commands
- Physical controls: 1.2 % accidental activations
- Learning Curve
- Touchscreen: 4 minutes to achieve baseline proficiency (per MIT Human Factors Lab)
- Physical controls: 1 minute for basic operation
Real‑World Accident Data Linked to Infotainment Use
- California Highway Patrol (2023‑2024): 1,842 crash reports listed “infotainment interaction” as a contributing factor; 68 % involved touchscreen menus.
- UK Department for Transport (2024): 5,103 reported incidents where drivers were “looking away from the road for longer than 2 seconds”; 62 % occurred while scrolling music playlists on a central console.
- Australian Transport Safety Bureau (2025): A case study of a fatal head‑on collision in Sydney identified a 3.2‑second visual glance on a navigation app as the decisive distraction moment.
Practical Tips for Safer Interaction with Touchscreen Systems
- Pre‑Set Preferences: Program destination, climate, and media sources before departure; use voice assistants for subsequent changes.
- Limit On‑Road Adjustments: Restrict infotainment interaction to no more than one task per 5‑minute driving interval.
- Utilize “Do Not Disturb While Driving” Mode: Activate automatically via vehicle’s CAN‑bus integration; blocks non‑essential notifications.
- Employ HUD (Heads‑Up Display) Summaries: When available, rely on HUD for navigation cues instead of glancing at the central screen.
- Optimize UI Layout: Choose manufacturers that offer cluster‑centric shortcuts (e.g., dedicated scrolling ring or tactile buttons) to reduce reliance on capacitive touch.
Automaker Responses and Emerging design Trends
- Mercedes-Benz MBUX 2025: Introduced a dual‑mode interface that switches to a simplified “driving‑mode” layout, displaying only essential functions and enlarging touch targets to 12 mm.
- Tesla Software Update v12.4: Added an eye‑tracking algorithm that temporarily disables scrolling gestures when driver gaze deviates from the road beyond 1.5 seconds.
- Volkswagen ID.4: integrated a physical rotary controller on the center console, positioned within arm’s reach, to replace touch‑only media browsing.
Regulatory Perspective and Safety Guidelines
- The International association for Standardization (ISO 26262) amendment (2025) now requires manufacturers to conduct distraction impact assessments for any new touchscreen feature exceeding 7 inches diagonal.
- U.S. Federal Motor vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 111 has been updated to mandate that any in‑vehicle display presenting navigation or media information must not increase driver glance time beyond 2 seconds under test conditions.
- European Union Directive 2025/89 obliges automakers to provide an “voice‑first” interaction option for all infotainment functions, with penalties for non‑compliance after 2026.
Future Research Directions
- Multimodal Interaction Studies: Ongoing trials at Stanford’s Center for Automotive Research are evaluating combined haptic‑feedback and auditory cues to reduce visual dependence.
- Adaptive UI algorithms: AI‑driven systems that dynamically simplify menus based on real‑time driver workload metrics are slated for pilot testing in 2026.
- Longitudinal Safety Monitoring: A five‑year cohort study by the Insurance Institute for Highway safety (IIHS) will track crash incidence among drivers using aftermarket touchscreen retrofits versus factory‑installed units.
Bottom‑Line Takeaway for Drivers
- Awareness: Recognize that each extra second spent looking at a touchscreen translates into measurable risk.
- Preparation: Set up routes, climate, and entertainment before moving the vehicle.
- Technology Choice: Favor vehicles that blend tactile controls with voice commands,or that offer a dedicated “low‑distraction” UI mode.
By aligning everyday driving habits with the latest safety research and leveraging emerging automaker features, motorists can mitigate the performance‑degrading effects of touchscreen infotainment without sacrificing connectivity.
