Sub-systems on the road to vehicle automation: Hands and feet free but not 'mind' free driving

Safety Science

Volumn 62, Issue , 2014, Pages 505-514

  Banks, Victoria A ^a   Stanton, Neville A ^a   Harvey, Catherine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Automation; Complexity; Distributed cognition; Operator sequence diagram; Pedestrian AEB

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATED SYSTEMS; COMPLEXITY; DISTRIBUTED COGNITION; LEVEL OF AUTOMATIONS; PEDESTRIAN AEB; SEQUENCE DIAGRAMS; VEHICLE AUTOMATIONS; VEHICLE OPERATIONS;

COMPLEX NETWORKS; ERGONOMICS;

AUTOMATION;

AUDITORY RESPONSE; AUTOMATION; CAR; CAR DRIVING; COGNITION; CONTROL SYSTEM; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DRIVING ABILITY; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; MOTOR VEHICLE; PEDESTRIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TAXONOMY; TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT; VISION;

EID: 84887392688     PISSN: 09257535     EISSN: 18791042     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.10.014     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Brookhuis K.A., et al. Criteria for driver impairment. Ergonomics 2003, 46:433-445.
2. Brookhuis K.A., de Waard D. Monitoring drivers' mental workload in driving simulators using physiological measures. Accident, Analysis and Prevention 2010, 42(3):898-903.
3. Byrne E.A., Parasuraman R. Psychophysiology and adaptive automation. Biological Psychology 1996, 42(3):249-268.
4. Cantin V., et al. Mental workload when driving in a simulator: effects of age and driving complexity. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2009, 41(4):763-771.
5. Cuevas H.M., et al. Augmenting team cognition in human-automation teams performing in complex operational environments. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 2007, 78(5):63-70.
6. Dehais F., et al. Cognitive conflict in human-automation interactions: a psychophysiological study. Applied Ergonomics 2012, 43(3):588-595.
7. Endsley M.R., Kaber D.B. Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics 1999, 42(3):462-492.
8. European Commission Study Report., 2010. SMART 2010/0064: Definition of necessary vehicle and infrastructure systems for Automated Driving, 1-111. Version 1.2.
9. Gandhi T., Trivedi M.M. Pedestrian protection systems: issues, survey, and challenges. IEEE Transaction on Intelligent Transportation Systems 2007, 8(3):1-2.
10. Groom V., Nass C. Can robots be teammates? Benchmarks in human-robot teams. Interaction Studies 2007, 8:483-500.
11. Hoc J.M., et al. Cooperation between drivers and automation: implications for safety. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 2009, 10(2):135-160.
12. Hollnagel E. Extended cognition and the future of ergonomics. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 2001, 2(3):309-356.
13. Hutchins E. How a cockpit remembers its speed. Cognitive Science 1995, 19:265-288.
14. Kaber D.B., Endsley M.R. The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 2004, 5(2):113-153.
15. Khan A.M., et al. Policy challenges of increasing automation in driving. IATSS Research 2012, 35(2):79-89. International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences.
16. Kurke M.I. Operational sequence diagrams in system design. Human Factors 1961, 3:66-73.
17. Langan-Fox J., et al. Human-automation teams and adaptable control for future air traffic management. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 2009, 39(5):894-903.
18. McKnight, A.J., Adams, B.B., 1970. Driver education task analysis volume 1: Task descriptions. Alexandria VA: Human Resources Research Organization.
19. Norman D.A. The "problem" with automation: inappropriate feedback and interaction, not "over-automation". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London - Series B: Biological Sciences 1990, 327(1241):585-593.
20. Parasuraman R., et al. A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A, Systems and Humans: IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Society 2000, 30(3):286-297.
21. Sheridan T.B., Verplanck W.L. Human and Computer Control of Undersea Teleoperators 1978, MIT Man-Machine Laboratory, Cambridge MA.
22. Sorensen L.J., et al. Back to SA school: contrasting three approaches to situation awareness in the cockpit. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 2011, 12(6):510-513.
23. Stanton N.A., et al. Detection of new in-path targets by drivers using stop and go adaptive cruise control. Applied Ergonomics 2011, 42(4):592-601.
24. Stanton N.A., Marsden P.P. From fly-by-wire to drive-by-wire: safety implications of automation in vehicles. Safety Science 1996, 24(1):35-49.
25. Stanton N.A., et al. Distributed situational awareness in dynamic systems: theoretical development and application of an ergonomics methodology. Ergonomics 2006, 49:1288-1311.
26. Stanton N.A., et al. Drive-by-wire: the case of driver workload and reclaiming control with adaptive cruise control. Safety Science 1997, 27(2-3):149-159.
27. Stanton N.A., Young M.S. Vehicle automation and driving performance. Ergonomics 1998, 41(7):1014-1028.
28. Stanton N.A., et al. The psychology of driving automation: a discussion with Professor Don Norman. International Journal of Vehicle Design 2007, 45(3):289.
29. Walker, G.H., et al., 2001. Hierarchical Task Analysis of Driving: A New Research Tool. In: Hanson, M.A., (Ed.), Annual Conference of the Ergonomics Society, Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 435-440.
30. Walker G.H., et al. Does advanced driver training improve situational awareness?. Applied Ergonomics 2009, 40(4):678-687. Elsevier Ltd.
31. Young M.S., Stanton N.A. Malleable attentional resources theory: a new explanation for the effects of mental underload on performance. Human Factors 2002, 44(3):365-375.