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 *

120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27633195)

  • 1. Comparing the demands of destination entry using Google Glass and the Samsung Galaxy S4 during simulated driving.
    Beckers N; Schreiner S; Bertrand P; Mehler B; Reimer B
    Appl Ergon; 2017 Jan; 58():25-34. PubMed ID: 27633195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Multi-modal demands of a smartphone used to place calls and enter addresses during highway driving relative to two embedded systems.
    Reimer B; Mehler B; Reagan I; Kidd D; Dobres J
    Ergonomics; 2016 Dec; 59(12):1565-1585. PubMed ID: 27110964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The relative impact of smartwatch and smartphone use while driving on workload, attention, and driving performance.
    Perlman D; Samost A; Domel AG; Mehler B; Dobres J; Reimer B
    Appl Ergon; 2019 Feb; 75():8-16. PubMed ID: 30509540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Does wearable device bring distraction closer to drivers? Comparing smartphones and Google Glass.
    He J; McCarley JS; Crager K; Jadliwala M; Hua L; Huang S
    Appl Ergon; 2018 Jul; 70():156-166. PubMed ID: 29866306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. In the eye of the beholder: A simulator study of the impact of Google Glass on driving performance.
    Young KL; Stephens AN; Stephan KL; Stuart GW
    Accid Anal Prev; 2016 Jan; 86():68-75. PubMed ID: 26519889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Measuring driver distraction - Evaluation of the box task method as a tool for assessing in-vehicle system demand.
    Morgenstern T; Wögerbauer EM; Naujoks F; Krems JF; Keinath A
    Appl Ergon; 2020 Oct; 88():103181. PubMed ID: 32678787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Texting while driving using Google Glass™: Promising but not distraction-free.
    He J; Choi W; McCarley JS; Chaparro BS; Wang C
    Accid Anal Prev; 2015 Aug; 81():218-29. PubMed ID: 26024837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Visual and cognitive demands of manual and voice-based driving mode implementations on smartphones.
    Monk C; Sall R; Lester BD; Stephen Higgins J
    Accid Anal Prev; 2023 Jul; 187():107033. PubMed ID: 37099998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The smartphone and the driver's cognitive workload: A comparison of Apple, Google, and Microsoft's intelligent personal assistants.
    Strayer DL; Cooper JM; Turrill J; Coleman JR; Hopman RJ
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2017 Jun; 71(2):93-110. PubMed ID: 28604047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Distraction and task engagement: How interesting and boring information impact driving performance and subjective and physiological responses.
    Horrey WJ; Lesch MF; Garabet A; Simmons L; Maikala R
    Appl Ergon; 2017 Jan; 58():342-348. PubMed ID: 27633231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A meta-analysis of in-vehicle and nomadic voice-recognition system interaction and driving performance.
    Simmons SM; Caird JK; Steel P
    Accid Anal Prev; 2017 Sep; 106():31-43. PubMed ID: 28554063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Driving While Interacting With Google Glass: Investigating the Combined Effect of Head-Up Display and Hands-Free Input on Driving Safety and Multitask Performance.
    Tippey KG; Sivaraj E; Ferris TK
    Hum Factors; 2017 Jun; 59(4):671-688. PubMed ID: 28186420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effect of police mobile computer terminal interface design on officer driving distraction.
    Zahabi M; Kaber D
    Appl Ergon; 2018 Feb; 67():26-38. PubMed ID: 29122198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Patterns in transitions of visual attention during baseline driving and during interaction with visual-manual and voice-based interfaces.
    Reimer B; Mehler B; Muñoz M; Dobres J; Kidd D; Reagan IJ
    Ergonomics; 2021 Nov; 64(11):1429-1451. PubMed ID: 34018916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The long road home from distraction: Investigating the time-course of distraction recovery in driving.
    Bowden VK; Loft S; Wilson MK; Howard J; Visser TAW
    Accid Anal Prev; 2019 Mar; 124():23-32. PubMed ID: 30610996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Sensitivity evaluation of the visual, tactile, and auditory detection response task method while driving.
    Stojmenova K; Jakus G; Sodnik J
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2017 May; 18(4):431-436. PubMed ID: 27588336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Good distractions: Testing the effects of listening to an audiobook on driving performance in simple and complex road environments.
    Nowosielski RJ; Trick LM; Toxopeus R
    Accid Anal Prev; 2018 Feb; 111():202-209. PubMed ID: 29223795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. On the highway measures of driver glance behavior with an example automobile navigation system.
    Chiang DP; Brooks AM; Weir DH
    Appl Ergon; 2004 May; 35(3):215-23. PubMed ID: 15145284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Influence of lane departure warnings onset and reliability on car drivers' behaviors.
    Navarro J; Deniel J; Yousfi E; Jallais C; Bueno M; Fort A
    Appl Ergon; 2017 Mar; 59(Pt A):123-131. PubMed ID: 27890120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.