Impact of training and in-vehicle task performance on manual control recovery in an automated car

Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

Volumn 46, Issue , 2017, Pages 216-227

  Payre, William ^a,b   Cestac, Julien ^b   Dang, Nguyen Thong ^b   Vienne, Fabrice ^b   Delhomme, Patricia ^b  

^a Institut VEDECOM   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ GUSTAVE EIFFEL   (France)

Author keywords

Fully automated driving; Manual control recovery; Non driving related task; Training; Trust

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; CRASHWORTHINESS; MANUAL CONTROL; PERSONNEL TRAINING; RECOVERY; RESPONSE TIME (COMPUTER SYSTEMS); SYSTEMS ENGINEERING; VEHICLES;

AUTOMATED DRIVING; DRIVING SIMULATOR; FULLY AUTOMATED; IN-VEHICLE TASK; NON-DRIVING RELATED TASK; SYSTEM FAILURES; TRAFFIC SAFETY; TRUST;

VEHICLE PERFORMANCE;

EID: 85014699249     PISSN: 13698478     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2017.02.001     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Brandenburg, S., & Skottke, E. M. (2014, October). Switching from manual to automated driving and reverse: Are drivers behaving more risky after highly automated driving? In IEEE 17th International Conference on Intelligent transportation systems (ITSC), 2014 (pp. 2978–2983). IEEE, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2014.6958168.
2. Brookhuis, K. A. & de Waard, D. (2006). Consequences of automation for driver behavior and acceptance. IeA 2006 congress (CD-ROM). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
3. Cohen, J., Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1988, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc. Publishers, New Jersey.
4. Davis, D., Schweizer, N., Parosh, A., Lieberman, D., Apter, Y., Measurement of the minimum reaction time for braking vehicles. 1990, Wingate Institute for Physical Education and Sport, Israel.
5. Deary, I.J., Der, G., Reaction time, age, and cognitive ability: Longitudinal findings from age 16 to 63 years in representative population samples. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition 12:2 (2005), 187–215.
6. Dingus, T. A., Jahns, S. K., Horowitz, A. D., & Knipling, R. (1998). Human factors design issues for crash avoidance systems. Human factors in intelligent transportation systems (pp. 55–93).
7. Dzindolet, M.T., Peterson, S.A., Pomranky, R.A., Pierce, L.G., Beck, H.P., The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 58 (2003), 697–718.
8. FAA - Federal Aviation Administration, Safety Alert for Operators No. 13002., 2013 Retrieved from .
9. FAA - Federal Aviation Administration (2013a). Operational Use of Flight Path Management Systems. Retrieved from < http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/afs400/parc/parc_reco/media/2013/130908_PARC_FltDAWG_Final_Report_Recommendations.pdf>.
10. Gold, C., Damböck, D., Bengler, K. & Lorenz, L. (2013a). Partially automated driving as a fallback level of high automation. In Proceedings of the 6. Tagung Fahrerassistenzsysteme. Der Weg zum automatischen Fahren. 28. – 29.11.2013; TÜV SÜD Akademie GmbH (pp. 1–5).
11. Gold, C., Damböck, D., Lorenz, L., & Bengler, K. (2013b, September). “Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop?. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 1938–1942). SAGE Publications.
12. Groeger, J.A., Field, D. & Hammond, S. (1998) Risk, hazard perception and perceived control. Vol 2: Computerised assessments of drivers’ skills: relationships between measures (Unpublished Project Report No. TT/124/98; DPU 9/31/14). Crowthorne, UK: Transport Research Laboratory in Groeger, J. A. (2000). Understanding driving: Applying cognitive psychology to a complex everyday task, 2. Psychology Press.
13. Hergeth, S., Lorenz, L., Krems, J.F., Prior familiarization with takeover requests affects drivers’ takeover performance and automation trust. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2016 0018720816678714.
14. Hoc, J.M., Young, M.S., Blosseville, J.M., Cooperation between drivers and automation: Implications for safety. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 10 (2009), 135–160.
15. Körber, M., Gold, C., Lechner, D., Bengler, K., The influence of age on the take-over of vehicle control in highly automated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 39 (2016), 19–32.
16. Larsson, A.F.L., Kircher, K., Hultgren, J.A., Learning from experience: Familiarity with ACC and responding to a cut-in situation in automated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 27:Part B (2014), 229–237.
17. Lee, J., Moray, N., Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics 35:10 (1992), 1243–1270.
18. Lee, J.D., See, K.A., Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46:1 (2004), 50–80.
19. Lefeuvre, R., Bordel, S., Guingouain, G., Somat, A., Testé, B., Pichot, N., Sentiment de contrôle et acceptabilité sociale a priori des aides à la conduite. Le travail humain 71:2 (2008), 97–135.
20. Moessinger, M., Kassaagi, M., Meyer, T., Delhomme, P., Valot, C., & Ragot, I. (2006). Attitude et dynamique de la confiance dans les alertes et les assistances à la conduite (ADAAC). Rapport final de recherche, Prédit 3 GO3 «Psychologie du comportement du conducteur» (PSYCO2, 2004–2005).
21. Muir, B.M., Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aides. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 27 (1987), 527–539.
22. Muir, B.M., Trust in automation: Part I. Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems. Ergonomics 37:11 (1994), 1905–1922.
23. Muir, B.M., Moray, N., Trust in Automation: Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics 39:3 (1996), 429–460.
24. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Preliminary statement of policy concerning automated vehicles. Retrieved from , 2013.
25. Neubauer, C., Matthews, G., & Saxby, D. (2012, September). The effects of cell phone use and automation on driver performance and subjective state in simulated driving. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 1987–1991). Sage Publications.
26. Parasuraman, R., Riley, V.A., Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors 39:2 (1997), 230–253.
27. Payre, W., Cestac, J., Delhomme, P., Intention to use a fully automated car: Attitudes and a priori acceptability. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 27:Part B (2014), 252–263, 10.1016/j.trf.2014.04.009.
28. Payre, W., Cestac, J., Delhomme, P., Fully automated driving impact of trust and practice on manual control recovery. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58:2 (2015), 229–241, 10.1177/0018720815612319.
29. Sabey, B.E., Taylor, H., The known risks we run: the highway. 1980, Springer, US, 43–70.
30. Senders, J. W., Kristofferson, A. B., Levison, W. H., Dietrich, C. W., Ward, J. L. (1967). The attentional demand of automobile driving. In: T. W. Victor, J. L. Harbluk, & J. A. Engström (2005). Sensitivity of eye-movement measures to in-vehicle task difficulty. Transportation Research Part F, 8, 167–190.
31. Skottke, E.-M., Debus, G., Wang, L. & Huestegge, L. (2014). Carry-over effects of highly automated convoy driving on subsequent manual driving performance. Human Factors. Published online before print March 4, 2014, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018720814524594.
32. Stanton, N.A., Young, M.S., McCaulder, B., Drive-by-wire: The case of driver workload and reclaiming control with adaptive cruise control. Safety Science 27 (1997), 149–159.
33. Strand, N., Nilsson, J., MariAnne Karlsson, I.C., Nilsson, L., Semi-automated versus highly automated driving in critical situations caused by automation failures. Transportation Research Part F 27:Part B (2014), 218–228.
34. Tversky, B., Visualizing thought. Topics in Cognitive Science 3:3 (2011), 499–535.
35. Wallis, T.S., Horswill, M.S., Using fuzzy signal detection theory to determine why experienced and trained drivers respond faster than novices in a hazard perception test. Accident Analysis & Prevention 39:6 (2007), 1177–1185.
36. Warshawsky-Livne, L., Shinar, D., Effects of uncertainty, transmission type, driver age and gender on brake reaction and movement time. Journal of safety research 33:1 (2002), 117–128.
37. World Health Organization (2013). Global status report on road safety 2013: Supporting a decade of action. Luxembourg.
38. Young, K. L. & Lenné, M. G. (2010). Risk associated with in-vehicle technology use while driving. Final Report. Monash University Accident Research Centre. Retrieved from < https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/~/media/files/documents/safety-and-road-rules/risksassociatedwithinvehicletechnologyusewhiledrivingforpublicationpd.ashx?la=en>.
39. Young, M. S., Brookhuis, K. A., Wickens, C. D., & Hancock, P. A. (2014). State of science: mental workload in ergonomics. Ergonomics (ahead-of-print), 1–17.
40. Young, K.L., Regan, M.A., Lee, J.D., Factors moderating the impact of distraction on driving performance and safety. Regan, M.A., Lee, J.D., Young, K.L., (eds.) Driver distraction: Theory, effects, and mitigation, 2008, CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 335–352.
41. Young, M.S., Stanton, N.A., What's skill got to do with it? Vehicle automation and driver mental workload. Ergonomics 50:8 (2007), 1324–1339, 10.1080/00140130701318855.