Towards guidelines and verification methods for automated vehicle HMIs

Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

Volumn 60, Issue , 2019, Pages 121-136

  Naujoks, Frederik ^a   Wiedemann, Katharina ^b   Schömig, Nadja ^b   Hergeth, Sebastian ^a   Keinath, Andreas ^a  

^a BMW GROUP   (Germany)

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

Author keywords

Automated driving; Guidelines; Human machine interface; Validation

Indexed keywords

HEURISTIC METHODS; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; INTERFACE STATES; MAN MACHINE SYSTEMS; VEHICLES;

AUTOMATED DRIVING; AUTOMATED DRIVING SYSTEMS; DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS; GUIDELINES; HUMAN MACHINE INTERFACE; LEVELS OF AUTOMATION; PRINCIPLES AND CRITERION; VALIDATION;

AUTOMATION;

EID: 85055724088     PISSN: 13698478     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2018.10.012     Document Type: Article

References (101)

1. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (2006). Statement of principles, criteria and verification procedures on driver interactions with advanced in-vehicle information and communication systems.
2. Abraham, H., Seppelt, B., Mehler, B., Reimer, B., What's in a name: Vehicle technology branding & consumer expectations for automation. Proceedings of the 9th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications, 2017, ACM, 226–234.
3. AdaptIVe Consortium, 2017. Final functional human factors recommendations (D3.3).
4. Alm, H., Nilsson, L., The effects of a mobile telephone task on driver behaviour in a car following situation. Accident Analysis & Prevention 27:5 (1995), 707–715.
5. Banks, V.A., Eriksson, A., O'Donoghue, J., Stanton, N.A., Is partially automated driving a bad idea? Observations from an on-road study. Applied Ergonomics 68 (2018), 138–145.
6. Bazilinskyy, P., de Winter, J., Auditory interfaces in automated driving: An international survey. PeerJ Computer Science, 1, 2015, e13.
7. Beller, J., Heesen, M., Vollrath, M., Improving the driver–automation interaction an approach using automation uncertainty. Human Factors 55:6 (2013), 1130–1141.
8. Brockmann, M., Allgaier, A., Timofeev, M., & Becker, S. (2016). Integrated HMI concept for driver assistance and automation. Mensch und Computer 2016 – Workshopband.
9. Borojeni, S. S., Meschtscherjakov, A., Mirnig, A. G., Boll, S., Naujoks, F., Politis, I., & Alverez, I. (2017). Control transition workshop: Handover and takeover procedures in highly automated driving. In Paper presented at the proceedings of the 9th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications adjunct.
10. Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership, Automated vehicles research for enhanced safety. 2016, NHTSA, Washington, DC.
11. Campbell, J.L., Carney, C., Kantowitz, B.H., Human Factors Design Guidelines for advanced traveler information systems (ATIS) and commercial vehicle operations CV0). (Report No. FHWA-RD-98-057). 1997, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
12. Campbell, J.L., Brown, J.L., Graving, J.S., Richard, C.M., Lichty, M.G., Sanquist, T., Morgan, J.L., Human factors design guidance for driver-vehicle interfaces (Report No. DOT HS 812 360). 2016, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC.
13. Campbell, J.L., Richard, C.M., Brown, J.L., McCallum, M., Crash warning system interfaces: Human factors insights and lessons learned. 2007, NHTSA, Washington, D.C.
14. Choi, S., Kuchenbecker, K.J., Vibrotactile display: Perception, technology, and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE 101:9 (2013), 2093–2104.
15. Desurvire, H.W., Kondziela, J.M., Atwood, M.E., What is gained and lost when using evaluation methods other than empirical testing. People and Computers, 1992, 89.
16. Dziennus, M., Kelsch, J., Schieben, A., Ambient light based interaction concept for an integrative driver assistance system – A driving simulator study. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Europe, 2016, 171–182.
17. ETSI EG 202 048 (2002). Human Factors (HF); Guidelines on the multimodality of icons, symbols and pictograms. European Telecommunications Standards Institute.
18. Forster, Y., Naujoks, F., & Neukum, A. (2017). Increasing anthropomorphism and trust in automated driving functions by adding speech output. Paper presented at the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV 2017), Redondo Beach, CA.
19. Forster, Y., Naujoks, F., Neukum, A., Huestegge, L., Driver compliance to take-over requests with different auditory outputs in conditional automation. Accident Analysis & Prevention 109 (2017), 18–28.
20. Gold, C., Damböck, D., Lorenz, L., Bengler, K., “Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop?. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, 2013, SAGE Publications, Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 1938–1942.
21. Gold, C., Körber, M., Lechner, D., Bengler, K., Taking over control from highly automated vehicles in complex traffic situations: The role of traffic density. Human Factors 58:4 (2016), 642–652.
22. Gold, C., Naujoks, F., Radlmayr, J., Bellem, H., Jarosch, O., Testing scenarios for human factors research in level 3 automated vehicles. International conference on applied human factors and ergonomics, 2017, Springer, Cham, 551–559.
23. Grant, B. S., Kiefer, R. J., & Wierwille, W. W. (1995). Drivers’ detection and identification of head-up versus head-down telltale warnings in automobiles. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting 39(17), 1087–1091.
24. Green, P., Levison, W., Paelke, G., Serafin, C., Suggested human factors design guidelines for driver information systems. 1994, UMTRI, Michigan.
25. Hallgren, K.A., Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 2012, 23.
26. HARDIE Consortium, HARDIE design guidelines handbook. 1996, HARDIE Project.
27. HAVEit Consortium (2011). Deliverable D61.1 Final Report. In: HAVEit Consortium.
28. Helldin, T., Falkman, G., Riveiro, M., & Davidsson, S. (2013). Presenting system uncertainty in automotive UIs for supporting trust calibration in autonomous driving. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 5th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications.
29. Hergeth, S., Lorenz, L., Krems, J.F., Prior familiarization with takeover requests affects drivers’ takeover performance and automation trust. Human Factors 59:3 (2017), 457–470.
30. Huang, D.L., Rau, P.L.P., Liu, Y., Effects of font size, display resolution and task type on reading Chinese fonts from mobile devices. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 39:1 (2009), 81–89.
31. Humar, I., Gradis, M., The impact of color combinations on the legibility of a Web page text presented on CRT displays. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 38:11–12 (2008), 885–899.
32. ISO 15008, Road vehicles – Ergonomic aspects of transport information and control systems – Specifications and test procedures for in-vehicle visual presentation. 2017, International Organization for Standardization.
33. ISO 15623, Intelligent transport systems – Forward vehicle collision warning systems – Performance requirements and test procedures. 2013, International Organization for Standardization.
34. ISO 26262, Road vehicles functional safety. 2008, International Organization for Standardization.
35. ISO 9241–11, Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. 2018, International Organization for Standardization.
36. Jacob, R.J., Karn, K.S., Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Ready to deliver the promises. Mind, 2(3), 2003, 4.
37. Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association (2004). Guideline for In-vehicle Display Systems—Version 3.0.
38. Jeffries, R., Desurvire, H., Usability testing vs. heuristic evaluation: Was there a contest?. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 24:4 (1992), 39–41.
39. Jeffries, R., Miller, J.R., Wharton, C., Uyeda, K., User interface evaluation in the real world: A comparison of four techniques. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 1991, ACM, 119–124.
40. Jones, L.A., Sarter, N.B., Tactile displays: Guidance for their design and application. Human factors 50:1 (2008), 90–111.
41. Kiefer, R.J., Effect of a head-up versus head-down digital speedometer on visual sampling behavior and speed control performance during daytime automobile driving. SAE 1991 Transactions (Section 6, Journal of Passenger Cars) 100 (1991), 82–93.
42. Kiefer, R.J., Defining the HUD benefit time window. Vision in Vehicles 6 (1998), 133–142.
43. Kiefer, R. J. (1996). A review of driver performance with head-up displays. Proceedings of the third annual world congress on intelligent transport systems. Orlando, FL, USA.
44. Kiefer, R.J., Gellatly, A.W., Quantifying the consequences of the “eyes-on-road” benefit attributed to head-up displays (SAE Paper #960946). 1996, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, USA.
45. Kiefer, R.J., Quantifying head-up display (HUD) pedestrian detection benefits for older drivers. 16th International technical conference on experimental safety vehicles, 1998, NHTSA, Windsor, 428–437.
46. Klauer, S.G., Dingus, T.A., Neale, V.L., Sudweeks, J.D., Ramsey, D.J., The impact of driver inattention on near-crash/crash risk: An analysis using the 100-car naturalistic driving study data. 2006, NHTSA, Washington, DC.
47. Klauer, S.G., Guo, F., Simons-Morton, B.G., Ouimet, M.C., Lee, S.E., Dingus, T.A., Distracted driving and risk of road crashes among novice and experienced drivers. New England Journal of Medicine 370:1 (2014), 54–59.
48. Körber, M., Baseler, E., Bengler, K., Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving. Applied Ergonomics 66 (2018), 18–31.
49. Körber, M., Weißgerber, T., Kalb, L., Blaschke, C., Farid, M., Prediction of take-over time in highly automated driving by two psychometric tests. Dyna 82:193 (2015), 195–201.
50. Lamble, D., Laakso, M., Summala, H., Detection thresholds in car following situations and peripheral vision: Implications for positioning of visually demanding in-car displays. Ergonomics 42:6 (1999), 807–815.
51. Legge, G.E., Parish, D.H., Luebker, A., Wurm, L.H., Psychophysics of reading: XI. Comparing color contrast and luminance contrast. Journal of Optical Society of America A 7:10 (1990), 2002–2010.
52. Manca, L., De Winter, J., & Happee, R. (2015). Visual displays for automated driving: A survey. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 7th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications (AutoUI 2015).
53. Marberger, C., Mielenz, H., Naujoks, F., Radlmayr, J., Bengler, K., & Wandtner, B. (2017). Understanding and applying the concept of “driver availability” in automated driving. Paper presented at the international conference on applied human factors and ergonomics.
54. Mehler, B., Kidd, D., Reimer, B., Reagan, I., Dobres, J., McCartt, A., Multi-modal assessment of on-road demand of voice and manual phone calling and voice navigation entry across two embedded vehicle systems. Ergonomics 59:3 (2016), 344–367.
55. Meixner, G., Häcker, C., Decker, B., Gerlach, S., Hess, A., Holl, K., Orfgen, M., Retrospective and future automotive infotainment systems—100 years of user interface evolution. Automotive user interfaces, 2017, Springer, 3–53.
56. Meng, F., Spence, C., Tactile warning signals for in-vehicle systems. Accident Analysis & Prevention 75 (2015), 333–346.
57. MIL-STD-1472G (2012). US Department of Defense.
58. Mirnig, A. G., Gätrner, M., Laminger, A., Meschtscherjakov, A., Trösterer, S., Tscheligi, M., … McGee, F. (2017). Control transition interfaces in semiautonomous vehicles: A categorization framework and literature analysis. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 9th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications, Oldenburg, Germany.
59. NASA-STD-3001 (2011). NASA space flight human-system standard volume 2: Human factors, habitability and environmental health. NSAS.
60. Naujoks, F., Kiesel, A., Neukum, A., Cooperative warning systems: The impact of false and unnecessary alarms on drivers’ compliance. Accident Analysis & Prevention 97 (2016), 162–175.
61. Naujoks, F., Forster, Y., Wiedemann, K., Neukum, A., A human-machine interface for cooperative highly automated driving. Stanton, N., Landry, S., Bucchianico, G.D., Vallicelli, A., (eds.) Advances in human aspects of transportation (AHFE 2016), 2016, Springer, Cham, 585–595.
62. Naujoks, F., Forster, Y., Wiedemann, K., Neukum, A., Improving usefulness of automated driving by lowering primary task interference through HMI design. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2017.
63. Naujoks, F., Hergeth, S., Wiedemann, K., Schömig, N. & Keinath, A. (2018). Use cases for assessing, testing, and validating the human machine interface of automated driving systems. In Human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. Philadelphia, USA.
64. Naujoks, F., Mai, C., Neukum, A., The effect of urgency of take-over requests during highly automated driving under distraction conditions. Ahram, T., Jang, R.-L., (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th AHFE conference, 2014, AHFE Conference, Kraków, Poland, 2099–2106.
65. Naujoks, F., Purucker, C., Neukum, A., Wolter, S., Steiger, R., 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 35 (2015), 185–198.
66. Naujoks, F., Purucker, C., Wiedemann, K., Neukum, A., Wolter, S., Steiger, R., Driving performance at lateral system limits during partially automated driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention 108 (2017), 147–162.
67. Naujoks, F., Totzke, I., Behavioral adaptation caused by predictive warning systems – The case of congestion tail warnings. Transportation Research Part F 26 (2014), 49–61.
68. Naujoks, F., Wiedemann, K., Schömig, N., Jarosch, O., Gold, C., Expert-based controllability assessment of control transitions from automated to manual driving. MethodsX 5 (2018), 579–592.
69. Nielsen, J., Usability inspection methods. Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems, 1994, ACM, 413–414.
70. Nielsen, J., Molich, R., Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 1990, ACM, 249–256.
71. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Policy, federal automated vehicles – accelerating the next revolution in roadway safety. 2016, NHTSA, Washigton, DC.
72. O'Regan, J.K., Levy-Schoen, A., (eds.) Eye movements from physiology to cognition: Selected/edited proceedings of the third European conference on eye movements, Dourdan, France, September 1985, 2013, Elsevier.
73. Pankok, C., Kaber, D.B., An integrated measure of display clutter based on feature content, user knowledge, and attention allocation factors. Ergonomics, 2017, 1–54.
74. Parasuraman, R., Riley, V., Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors 39:2 (1997), 230–253.
75. Patten, C.J., Kircher, A., Östlund, J., Nilsson, L., Using mobile telephones: Cognitive workload and attention resource allocation. Accident Analysis & Prevention 36:3 (2004), 341–350.
76. Pauzié A. (2008). Evaluating driver mental workload using the driving activity load index (DALI). Paper presented at the proc. of European conference on human interface design for intelligent transport systems.
77. Petermeijer, S.M., De Winter, J.C., Bengler, K.J., Vibrotactile displays: A survey with a view on highly automated driving. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 17:4 (2016), 897–907.
78. Purucker, C., Naujoks, F., Prill, A., Neukum, A., Evaluating distraction of in-vehicle information systems while driving by predicting total eyes-off-road times with keystroke level modeling. Applied Ergonomics 58 (2017), 543–554.
79. Reimer, B., Mehler, B., Dobres, J., Coughlin, J.F., Matteson, S., Gould, D., Levantovsky, V., Assessing the impact of typeface design in a text-rich automotive user interface. Ergonomics 57:11 (2014), 1643–1658.
80. Reimer, B., Mehler, B., Reagan, I., Kidd, D., Dobres, J., Multi-modal demands of a smartphone used to place calls and enter addresses during highway driving relative to two embedded systems. Ergonomics 59:12 (2016), 1565–1585.
81. RESPONSE Consortium (2006). Code of practice for the design and evaluation of ADAS. RESPONSE 3: A PReVENT Project.
82. Sanders, M.S., McCormick, E.J., Human factors in engineering and design. 1993, McGraw-Hill, Singapore.
83. Society of Automotive Engineers International J3016, Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to on-road motor vehicle automated driving systems. 2018, SAE International, Warrendale, PA.
84. Society of Automotive Engineers International J2831, Development of design and engineering recommendations for in-vehicle alphanumeric messages. 2012, SAE International, Warrendale, PA.
85. Society of Automotive Engineers International J2400, Human factors in forward collision warning systems: Operating characteristics and user interface requirements. 2003, SAE International, Warrendale, PA.
86. Salvucci, D.D., Taatgen, N.A., Borst, J.P., Toward a unified theory of the multitasking continuum: From concurrent performance to task switching, interruption, and resumption. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2009, ACM, 1819–1828.
87. Sawyer, B. D., Dobres, J., Chahine, N., & Reimer, B. (2017). The cost of cool: Typographic style legibility in reading at a glance. Paper presented at the proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting.
88. Stevens, A., Quimby, A., Board, A., Kersloot, T., Burns, P., Design guidelines for safety of in-vehicle information systems. 2002, In TRL, Wokingham, UK.
89. Transport Research Laboratory, Design guidelines for safety of in-vehicle information systems. 2002, TRL, Wokingham, UK.
90. Transport Research Laboratory (2011). A checklist for the assessment of in-vehicle information systems (IVIS) Wokingham: TRL.
91. Tullis, T. S., Boynton, J. L. & Hersh, H. (1995), Readability of fonts in the windows Environment. Proceedings of ACM CHI’ 95 conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 127–128.
92. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2009). Guidelines on establishing requirements for high-priority warning signals.
93. Vallerie, L. L. (1967). Peripheral vision displays (Vol. 1239). National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
94. van den Beukel, A.P., van der Voort, M.C., How to assess driver's interaction with partially automated driving – A framework for early concept assessment. Applied Ergonomics 59:Part A (2017), 302–312.
95. Van Erp, J. B. (2002). Guidelines for the use of vibro-tactile displays in human computer interaction. Paper presented at the proceedings of eurohaptics.
96. Young, S. J. (2003). Design of an agricultural driving simulator for ergonomic evaluation of guidance displays.
97. Virzi, R.A., Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: How many subjects is enough?. Human Factors 34:4 (1992), 457–468.
98. Wu, J.H., Yuan, Y.F., Improving searching and reading performance: The effect of highlighting and text color coding. Information & Management 40:7 (2003), 617–637.
99. Wickens, C.D., Processing resources in attention. Parasuraman, R., Davies, D.R., (eds.) Varieties of attention, 1984, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 63–102.
100. Wiedemann, K., Naujoks, F., Wörle, J., Kenntner-Mabiala, R., Kaussner, Y., Neukum, A., Effect of different alcohol levels on take-over performance in conditionally automated driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention 115 (2018), 89–97.
101. Wittmann, M., Kiss, M., Gugg, P., Steffen, A., Fink, M., Pöppel, E., Kamiya, H., Effects of display position of a visual in-vehicle task on simulated driving. Applied Ergonomics 37:2 (2006), 187–199.