Behavioral Changes to Repeated Takeovers in Highly Automated Driving: Effects of the Takeover-Request Design and the Nondriving-Related Task Modality

Human Factors

Volumn 61, Issue 5, 2019, Pages 839-849

  Roche, Fabienne ^a   Somieski, Anna ^b   Brandenburg, Stefan ^a  

^a TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

^b Constin GmbH ^*  (Germany)

Author keywords

auditory displays; driver behavior; eye tracking; human automation interaction; interface evaluation; vehicle automation; visual displays

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CONTROL SYSTEM SYNTHESIS; EYE TRACKING; ROADS AND STREETS; VEHICLES;

AUDITORY DISPLAY; DRIVER BEHAVIOR; HUMAN-AUTOMATION INTERACTIONS; INTERFACE EVALUATION; VEHICLE AUTOMATIONS; VISUAL DISPLAY;

AUTOMATION;

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; BEHAVIOR CHANGE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DRIVING ABILITY; EYE TRACKING; FEMALE; GAZE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; SIMULATION; WORKLOAD; AGED; CAR DRIVING; COMPUTER INTERFACE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MIDDLE AGED; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; AUTOMATION; AUTOMOBILE DRIVING; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA DISPLAY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85059936824     PISSN: 00187208     EISSN: 15478181     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0018720818814963     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Agrawal R., Wright T. J., Samuel S., Zilberstein S., Fisher D. L., (2017). Effects of a change in environment on the minimum time to situation awareness in transfer of control scenarios. Transportation Research Record, 2663(1), 126–133. https://doi.org/10.3141/2663-16
2. Backhaus N., Brandenburg S., (2014). Temporal dynamics of emotional activation in man-machine interaction. i-com, 13(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1515/icom-2014-0009
3. Bainbridge L., (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19(6), 775–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-1098(83)90046-8
4. Brandenburg S., Backhaus N., (2016). The dynamics of film-induced affect and its effect on the interaction with tablet PCs. Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(5), 410–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1151076
5. Byers J. C., Bittner A. C., Hill S. G., (1989). Traditional and raw task load index (TLX) correlations: Are paired comparisons necessary? Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety, 481–485.
6. Carsten O., Lai F. C. H., Barnard Y., Jamson A. H., Merat N., (2012). Control task substitution in semiautomated driving: Does it matter what aspects are automated? Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54(5), 747–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812460246
7. Chen K., Choi H. J., (2008). Visual attention and eye movements, 1–14. Retrieved from https://www.ics.uci.edu/~majumder/vispercep/paper08/visualattention.pdf
8. Cohen J., (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Damböck D., Farid M., Tönert L., Bengler K., (2012). Übernahmezeiten beim hochautomatisierten Fahren [Takeover times for highly automated driving]. In Tagung Fahrerassistenz (p. 16). München.
10. Endsley M. R., (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(1), 32–64.
11. Endsley M. R., Kiris E. O., (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(2), 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779064555
12. Epple S., Roche F., Brandenburg S., (2018). The sooner the better: Drivers’ reactions to two-step take-over requests in highly automated driving. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62(1), 1883–1887.
13. Feldhütter A., Gold C., Schneider S., Bengler K., (2017). How the duration of automated driving influences take-over performance and gaze behavior. In Schlick C. M., Duckwitz S., Flemisch F., Frenz M., Kuz S., Mertens A., Mütze-Niewöhner S., (Eds.), Advances in ergonomic design of systems, products and processes (pp. 309–318). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53305-5_22
14. Forster Y., Naujoks F., Neukum A., Huestegge L., (2017). Driver compliance to take-over requests with different auditory outputs in conditional automation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 109, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.09.019
15. Gold C., Körber M., Lechner D., Bengler K., (2016). Taking over control from highly automated vehicles in complex traffic situations: The role of traffic density. Human Factors, 58(4), 642–652.
16. Hart S. G., (2006). Nasa-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(9), 904–908.
17. Hart S. G., Staveland L. E., (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Hancock P., Meshkati N., (Eds.), Human Mental Workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Retrieved from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0166411508623869
18. Hendy K. C., Hamilton K. M., Landry L. N., (1993). Measuring subjective workload: When is one scale better than many? Human Factors, 35(4), 579–601.
19. Hergeth S., Lorenz L., Vilimek R., Krems J. F., (2016). Keep your scanners peeled: Gaze behavior as a measure of automation trust during highly automated driving. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 58(3), 509–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815625744
20. Hoedemaeker M., Brookhuis K. A., (1998). Behavioural adaptation to driving with an adaptive cruise control (ACC). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1(2), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478(98)00008-4
21. ISO/TS. ISO/TS, 14198 § (2012).
22. Kuehn M., Vogelpohl T., Vollrath M., (2017). Takeover times in highly automated driving (Level 3; paper 17-0027). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
23. Lakens D., (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
24. Naujoks F., Mai C., Neukum A., (2014, July). The effect of urgency of take-over requests during highly automated driving under distraction conditions. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Krakow.
25. Parasuraman R., Sheridan T. B., Wickens C. D., (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, IEEE Transactions On, 30(3), 286–297.
26. Petermeijer S., Bazilinskyy P., Bengler K., de Winter J., (2017). Take-over again: Investigating multimodal and directional TORs to get the driver back into the loop. Applied Ergonomics, 62, 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.02.023
27. Politis I., Brewster S., Pollick F., (2015a). Language-based multimodal displays for the handover of control in autonomous cars. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 3–10). Nottingham: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2799250.2799262
28. Politis I., Brewster S., Pollick F., (2015b). To beep or not to beep? Comparing abstract versus language-based multimodal driver displays. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3971–3980). Seoul, Korea: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702167
29. Radlmayr J., Gold C., Lorenz L., Farid M., Bengler K., (2014). How traffic situations and non-driving related tasks affect the take-over quality in highly automated driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 58(1), 2063–2067. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581434
30. SAE International. (2018). Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles (J3016).
31. Walch M., Lange K., Baumann M., Weber M., (2015). Autonomous driving: Investigating the feasibility of car-driver handover assistance. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 11–18). Nottingham: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2799250.2799268
32. Wandtner B., Schömig N., Schmidt G., (2018). Effects of non-driving related task modalities on takeover performance in highly automated driving. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 60(6), 870–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818768199
33. Wickens C. D., (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220210123806
34. Wright T. J., Agrawal R., Samuel S., Wang Y., Zilberstein S., Fisher D. L., (2017). Effects of alert cue specificity on situation awareness in transfer of control in Level 3 automation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2663, 27–33.
35. Yamani Y., Horrey W. J., (2018). A theoretical model of human-automation interaction grounded in resource allocation policy during automated driving. Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 5(3), 225–239.
36. Zeeb K., Buchner A., Schrauf M., (2015). What determines the take-over time? An integrated model approach of driver take-over after automated driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 78, 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.02.023