These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19653479)

  • 1. Skill acquisition while operating in-vehicle information systems: interface design determines the level of safety-relevant distractions.
    Jahn G; Krems JF; Gelau C
    Hum Factors; 2009 Apr; 51(2):136-51. PubMed ID: 19653479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Multi-modal assessment of on-road demand of voice and manual phone calling and voice navigation entry across two embedded vehicle systems.
    Mehler B; Kidd D; Reimer B; Reagan I; Dobres J; McCartt A
    Ergonomics; 2016 Mar; 59(3):344-67. PubMed ID: 26269281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The effect of stimulus modality on signal detection: implications for assessing the safety of in-vehicle technology.
    Merat N; Jamson AH
    Hum Factors; 2008 Feb; 50(1):145-58. PubMed ID: 18354978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Practical issues in the application of occlusion to measure visual demands imposed on drivers by in-vehicle tasks.
    Brook-Carter N; Stevens A; Reed N; Thompson S
    Ergonomics; 2009 Feb; 52(2):177-86. PubMed ID: 18651286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The Attentional Demand of Automobile Driving Revisited: Occlusion Distance as a Function of Task-Relevant Event Density in Realistic Driving Scenarios.
    Kujala T; Mäkelä J; Kotilainen I; Tokkonen T
    Hum Factors; 2016 Feb; 58(1):163-80. PubMed ID: 26238120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The validity of driving simulation for assessing differences between in-vehicle informational interfaces: A comparison with field testing.
    Wang Y; Mehler B; Reimer B; Lammers V; D'Ambrosio LA; Coughlin JF
    Ergonomics; 2010 Mar; 53(3):404-20. PubMed ID: 20191415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Changes in glance behaviour when using a visual eco-driving system - A field study.
    Ahlstrom C; Kircher K
    Appl Ergon; 2017 Jan; 58():414-423. PubMed ID: 27633238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Mental workload associated with operating an agricultural sprayer: an empirical approach.
    Dey AK; Mann DD
    J Agric Saf Health; 2011 Apr; 17(2):91-110. PubMed ID: 21675281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Effects on driving performance of interacting with an in-vehicle music player: a comparison of three interface layout concepts for information presentation.
    Mitsopoulos-Rubens E; Trotter MJ; Lenné MG
    Appl Ergon; 2011 May; 42(4):583-91. PubMed ID: 20869694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The implications of cross-regional differences for the design of In-vehicle Information Systems: a comparison of Australian and Chinese drivers.
    Young KL; Rudin-Brown CM; Lenné MG; Williamson AR
    Appl Ergon; 2012 May; 43(3):564-73. PubMed ID: 21944830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Modelling the hare and the tortoise: predicting the range of in-vehicle task times using critical path analysis.
    Harvey C; Stanton NA
    Ergonomics; 2013; 56(1):16-33. PubMed ID: 23140467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Skill acquisition with text-entry interfaces: particularly older users benefit from minimized information-processing demands.
    Jahn G; Krems JF
    J Appl Gerontol; 2013 Aug; 32(5):605-26. PubMed ID: 25474764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluating secondary input devices to support an automotive touchscreen HMI: A cross-cultural simulator study conducted in the UK and China.
    Large DR; Burnett G; Crundall E; Lawson G; Skrypchuk L; Mouzakitis A
    Appl Ergon; 2019 Jul; 78():184-196. PubMed ID: 31046950
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The impact of secondary task cognitive processing demand on driving performance.
    Blanco M; Biever WJ; Gallagher JP; Dingus TA
    Accid Anal Prev; 2006 Sep; 38(5):895-906. PubMed ID: 16584702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Driver experience and cognitive workload in different traffic environments.
    Patten CJ; Kircher A; Ostlund J; Nilsson L; Svenson O
    Accid Anal Prev; 2006 Sep; 38(5):887-94. PubMed ID: 16620740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The impact of distraction mitigation strategies on driving performance.
    Donmez B; Boyle LN; Lee JD
    Hum Factors; 2006; 48(4):785-804. PubMed ID: 17240725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. On-Road Evaluation of In-vehicle Interface Characteristics and Their Effects on Performance of Visual Detection on the Road and Manual Entry.
    Suh Y; Ferris TK
    Hum Factors; 2019 Feb; 61(1):105-118. PubMed ID: 30059239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of manual vs. speech-based interaction with in-vehicle information systems.
    Maciej J; Vollrath M
    Accid Anal Prev; 2009 Sep; 41(5):924-30. PubMed ID: 19664428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A field study on the impact of variations in shortterm memory demands on drivers' visual attention and driving performance across three age groups.
    Reimer B; Mehler B; Wang Y; Coughlin JF
    Hum Factors; 2012 Jun; 54(3):454-68. PubMed ID: 22768646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. On the reliability of the occlusion technique as a tool for the assessment of the HMI of in-vehicle information and communication systems.
    Gelau C; Henning MJ; Krems JF
    Appl Ergon; 2009 Mar; 40(2):181-4. PubMed ID: 18550026
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.