Lara Scatturin
ABSTRACT
Influencing factors on the take-over performance during conditionally automated driving are intensively researched these days. Most of the studies focus on visual and motoric reactions. Only limited information is available about what happens on the cognitive level during the transition from automated to manual driving. Thus, the aim of the study is to investigate a measurement method for assessing the cognitive take-over performance. In this method, the cognitive component decision-making is operationalized via concurrent verbalization of action decisions. The results suggest that valid predictions for the time of the decision can be provided. Additionally, it seems that the effects of situational complexity on the driver behavior can be extended to cognitive processes. A temporal classification of the decision-making within the take-over process is derived that can be applied for the development of cognitive plausible assistance systems.
- Åkerstedt, T. and Gillberg, M. 1990. Subjective and objective sleepiness in the active individual. International Journal of Neuroscience 52, 1-2, 29–37.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Altenburg, S., Kienzler, H.-P., and Auf der Maur, A. 2018. Einführung von Automatisierungsfunktionen in der Pkw-Flotte. Auswirkungen auf Bestand und Sicherheit. Study by Prognos AG on behalf of ADAC e.V. https://www.prognos.com/uploads/tx_atwpubdb/ADAC_Automatisiertes_Fahren_Endbericht_final.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2020.Google Scholar
- Atomic Motion Systems. A-Series Motion Systems. https://www.atomicmotionsystems.com/motion-systems/. Accessed 5 May 2020.Google Scholar
- Audi AG. The pulse of autonomous driving. Eine internationale Nutzertypologie und eine emotionale Landkarte zum autonomen Fahren. https://www.audi.com/en/company/research/and-audi-initiative/study-autonomous-driving.html. Accessed 5 May 2020.Google Scholar
- Bazilinskyy, P., Petermeijer, S. M., Petrovych, V., Dodou, D., and Winter, J.C.F. de. 2018. Take-over requests in highly automated driving: A crowdsourcing survey on auditory, vibrotactile, and visual displays. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 56, 82–98.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Borojeni, S. S., Weber, L., Heuten, W., and Boll, S. 2018. From reading to driving: priming mobile users for take-over situations in highly automated driving. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, 1–12.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
- Endsley, M. R. 1995. Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems. Human factors 37, 1, 32–64.Google Scholar
- Endsley, M. R. and Kiris, E. O. 1995. The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human factors 37, 2, 381–394.Google Scholar
- Eriksson, A. and Stanton, N. A. 2017. Takeover Time in Highly Automated Vehicles: Noncritical Transitions to and From Manual Control. Human factors 59, 4, 689–705.Google Scholar
- Fisher, R. J. and Katz, J. E. 2000. Social‐desirability bias and the validity of self‐reported values. Psychology & marketing 17, 2, 105–120.Google Scholar
- Gold, C., Damböck, D., Lorenz, L., and Bengler, K. 2013. “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 57, 1, 1938–1942.Google Scholar
- Gold, C., Happee, R., and Bengler, K. 2018. Modeling take-over performance in level 3 conditionally automated vehicles. Accident Analysis and Prevention 116, 3–13.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gold, C., Körber, M., Lechner, D., and 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.Google Scholar
- Hecht, T., Feldhütter, A., Radlmayr, J., Nakano, Y., Miki, Y., Henle, C., and Bengler, K. 2018. A Review of Driver State Monitoring Systems in the Context of Automated Driving. Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, 398–408.Google Scholar
- IEEE Innovation at work. 2020. New Level 3 Autonomous Vehicles Hitting the Road in 2020. https://innovationatwork.ieee.org/new-level-3-autonomous-vehicles-hitting-the-road-in-2020/. Accessed 15 July 2020.Google Scholar
- Keshavarz, B. and Hecht, H. 2011. Validating an efficient method to quantify motion sickness. Human factors 53, 4, 415–426.Google Scholar
- Louw, T., Merat, N., and Jamson, H. 2015. Engaging with Highly Automated Driving: To be or Not to be in the Loop? In 8th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, 190–196.Google Scholar
- Marberger, C., Mielenz, H., Naujoks, F., Radlmayr, J., Bengler, K., and Wandtner, B. 2017. Understanding and Applying the Concept of “Driver Availability” in Automated Driving. International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, 595–605.Google Scholar
- Mayring, P. 2014. Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution.Google Scholar
- McDonald, A. D., Alambeigi, H., Engström, J., Markkula, G., Vogelpohl, T., Dunne, J., and Yuma, N. 2019. Toward computational simulations of behavior during automated driving takeovers: a review of the empirical and modeling literatures. Human factors 61, 4, 642–688.Google Scholar
- Naujoks, F., Purucker, C., Wiedemann, K., and Marberger, C. 2019. Noncritical State Transitions During Conditionally Automated Driving on German Freeways: Effects of Non-Driving Related Tasks on Takeover Time and Takeover Quality. Human factors 61, 4, 596–613.Google Scholar
- Naujoks, F., Wiedemann, K., Schömig, N., Hergeth, S., and Keinath, A. 2019. Towards guidelines and verification methods for automated vehicle HMIs. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 60, 121–136.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Naujoks, F., Wiedemann, K., Schömig, N., Jarosch, O., and Gold, C. 2018. Expert-based controllability assessment of control transitions from automated to manual driving. MethodsX 5, 579–592.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Othersen, I., Petermann-Stock, I., Schoemig, N., and Fuest, T. 2018. Method development and interaction cognitive driver take-over ability after piloted driving. ATZelektronik worldwide 13, 2, 28–33.Google Scholar
- Petermeijer, S., Doubek, F., and Winter, J. de. 2017 - 2017. Driver response times to auditory, visual, and tactile take-over requests: A simulator study with 101 participants. In2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). IEEE, 1505–1510. DOI=10.1109/SMC.2017.8122827.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Radlmayr, J., Gold, C., Lorenz, L., Farid, M., and 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.Google Scholar
- SAE International. 2016. Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-road Motor Vehicles.Google Scholar
- Scatturin, L., Erbach, R., and Baumann, M. Cognitive psychological approach for unraveling the take-over process during automated driving. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications: Adjunct Proceedings 2019, September, 215–220. DOI=10.1145/3349263.3351501.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tobii AB. 2020. Tobii Pro Glasses 2. https://www.tobiipro.com/product-listing/tobii-pro-glasses-2/. Accessed 5 May 2020.Google Scholar
- Wandtner, B., Schmidt, G., Schoemig, N., and Kunde, W. 2018. Non-driving related tasks in highly automated driving-Effects of task modalities and cognitive workload on take-over performance. AmE 2018-Automotive meets Electronics; 9th GMM-Symposium, 1–6.Google Scholar
- Würzburg Institute for Traffic Sciences GmbH. Driving Simulation and SILAB. https://wivw.de/en/silab. Accessed 5 May 2020.Google Scholar
- Zeeb, K., Buchner, A., and Schrauf, M. 2015. What determines the take-over time? An integrated model approach of driver take-over after automated driving. Accident; analysis and prevention 78, 212–221.Google Scholar
- Zhang, B., Winter, J. de, Varotto, S., Happee, R., and Martens, M. 2019. Determinants of take-over time from automated driving: A meta-analysis of 129 studies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 64, 285–307.Google ScholarCross Ref
- “Left!” – “Right!” – “Follow!”: Verbalization of Action Decisions for Measuring the Cognitive Take-Over Process
Recommendations
(Over)Trust in Automated Driving: The Sleeping Pill of Tomorrow?
CHI EA '19: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsBoth overtrust in technology and drowsy driving are safety-critical issues. Monitoring a system is a tedious task and overtrust in technology might also influence drivers' vigilance, what in turn could multiply the negative impact of both issues. The ...
Theo, take a right ... uh ... left: Conversational Route Negotiations with Autonomous Driving Assistants
AutomotiveUI '18: Adjunct Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular ApplicationsWe foresee conversational driver assistants playing a crucial role in automated driving interactions. In this video we present a study of user interactions with an in-vehicle agent, "Theo", under SAE Level 4 automated driving. We use a remote Wizard-of-...
Cooperative Overtaking: Overcoming Automated Vehicles' Obstructed Sensor Range via Driver Help
AutomotiveUI '19: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular ApplicationsAutomated vehicles will eventually operate safely without the need of human supervision and fallback, nevertheless, scenarios will remain that are managed more efficiently by a human driver. A common approach to overcome such weaknesses is to shift ...
Comments