Increasing anthropomorphism and trust in automated driving functions by adding speech output

IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2017, Pages 365-372

  Forster, Yannick ^a   Naujoks, Frederik ^b   Neukum, Alexandra ^a  

^a Wuerzburg Institute for Traffic Sciences GmbH (WIVW)   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INTELLIGENT VEHICLE HIGHWAY SYSTEMS; SEMANTICS; SPEECH; SURVEYS; VEHICLES;

AUDIO-VISUAL; AUTOMATED DRIVING; AUTOMATED SYSTEMS; HUMAN MACHINE INTERFACE; IN-VEHICLE AUTOMATION; SEMANTIC INFORMATION; SPEECH OUTPUT;

AUTOMATION;

EID: 85028063436     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/IVS.2017.7995746     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. Verberne, F., J. Ham, and C. Midden, Trust in smart systems sharing driving goals and giving information to increase trustworthiness and acceptability of smart systems in cars. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2012. 54(5): p. 799-810.
2. Sheridan, T. Considerations in modeling the human supervisory controller. in International Federation of Automatic Control, Triennial World Congress, 6 th, Boston and Cambridge, Mass. 1975.
3. Lee, J. and K. See, Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2004. 46(1): p. 50-80.
4. Mayer, R., J. Davis, and D. Schoorman, An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 1995. 20(3): p. 709-734.
5. Forster, Y., F. Naujoks, and A. Neukum. Your turn or my turn? Design of a Human-Machine Interface for Conditional Automation. in 8th conference of User Interfaces and Vehicular Applications. 2016. Ann Arbor, MI.
6. Naujoks, F., et al., Speech improves human-Automation cooperation in automated driving. Mensch und Computer 2016 Workshopband, 2016.
7. Naujoks, F., A. Kiesel, and A. Neukum, Cooperative warning systems: The impact of false and unnecessary alarms on driveers aomppliance Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2016. 97: p. 162-175.
8. Barber, B., The logic and limits of trust. 1983.
9. Smith, E.R., D.M. Mackie, and H.M. Claypool, Social psychology. 2014: Psychology Press.
10. Gold, C., et al., Trust in automation: Before and after the experience of take-over scenarios in a highly automated vehicle. Procedia Manufacturing, 2015. 3: p. 3025-3032.
11. Hergeth, S., et al., Keep Your Scanners Peeled: Gaze Behavior as a Measure of Automation Trust During Highly Automated Driving. Human factors, 2016.
12. Naujoks, F., C. Purucker, and A. Neukum, Secondary task engagement and vehicle automation Comparing the effects of different automation levels in an on-road experiment. Transportation research part F: Traffic psychology and behaviour, 2016. 38: p. 67-82.
13. Dzindolet, M., et al., The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2003. 58(6): p. 697-718.
14. Hergeth, S., L. Lorenz, and J.F. Krems, Prior Familiarization With Takeover Requests Affects Drivers Takeover Performance and Automation Trust. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2016: p. 0018720816678714.
15. Beggiato, M. and J.F. Krems, The evolution of mental model, trust and acceptance of adaptive cruise control in relation to initial information. Transportation research part F: Traffic psychology and behaviour, 2013. 18: p. 47-57.
16. Ekman, F., M. Johansson, and J. Sochor. Creating Appropriate Trust for Autonomous Vehicle Systems: A Framework for HMI Design. in Proceedings of the 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC January 10-14, 2016. 2016.
17. Epley, N., A. Waytz, and J. Cacioppo, On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological review, 2007. 114(4): p. 864.
18. Waytz, A., J. Heafner, and N. Epley, The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2014. 52: p. 113-117.
19. Lee, J.-G., J. Gu, and D.-H. Shin. Trust In Unmanned Driving System. in Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction Extended Abstracts. 2015.
20. Hoffman, L., K. Lawson-Jenkins, and J. Blum, Trust beyond security: An expanded trust model. Communications of the ACM, 2006. 49(7): p. 94-101.
21. Wickens, C.D. and S.R. Dixon, The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2007. 8(3): p. 201-212.
22. Naujoks, F., et al., Controllability of Partially Automated Driving functions Does it matter whether drivers are allowed to take their hands off the steering wheel? Transportation research part F: Traffic psychology and behaviour, 2015. 35: p. 185-198.
23. Naujoks, F., et al. A Human-Machine Interface for Cooperative Highly Automated Driving. in 7th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. 2016. Orlando, FL: Springer.
24. Bazilinskyy, P. and J. de Winter, Auditory interfaces in automated driving: An international survey. PeerJ Computer Science, 2015. 1.
25. Brooke, J., SUS-A quick and dirty USAbility scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 1996. 189(194): p. 4-7.
26. Hoffmann, S., H.P. Kruger, and S. Buld, Avoidance of simulator sickness by training the adaptation to the driving simulation. VDI BERICHTE, 2003. 1745: p. 385-406.
27. Cohen, J., A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 1992. 112(1): p. 155.
28. Lödtke, O., et al., Umgang mit fehlenden Werten in der psychologischen Forschung. Psychologische Rundschau, 2007. 58(2): p. 103-117.
29. Meyer, J., Conceptual issues in the study of dynamic hazard warnings. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2004. 46(2): p. 196-204.
30. Dingus, T.A., et al., Human factors design issues for crash avoidance systems. Human factors in intelligent transportation systems, 1998: p. 55-93.
31. Bangor, A., P. Kortum, and J. Miller, An empirical evaluation of the system USAbility scale. Intl. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 2008. 24(6): p. 574-594.