Marcel Woide
Mark Colley
ABSTRACT
Drivers want to retain a sense of control when driving (partially) automated vehicles (AVs). Future AVs will continue to offer the possibility to drive manually, potentially leading to challenging driver-initiated takeovers (DITs) due to the "out-of-the-loop problem" and reduced driving performance. A driving simulator study (N=24) was conducted to explore whether cooperative systems, without full control of driving tasks, provide a sense of control to mitigate DITs in varying conflict situations. Conflict levels were operationalized by an AV performing overtaking maneuvers under free, 100m, and 50m visibility on a two-lane rural road. Participants experienced three systems: no intervention-, a cooperative choice-, and a manual control system. Results showed that participants had a similar sense of control with the cooperative system compared to the manual one and preferred it over the manual system. The likelihood of DITs increased with conflict intensity, and trust in the AV moderated the conflict-DIT association.
Supplemental Material
- Adriano Alessandrini, Andrea Campagna, Paolo Delle Site, Francesco Filippi, and Luca Persia. 2015. Automated vehicles and the rethinking of mobility and cities. Transportation Research Procedia 5 (2015), 145–160.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Sandra Becker, Stefan Brandenburg, and Manfred Thüring. 2022. Driver-initiated take-overs during critical braking maneuvers in automated driving – The role of time headway, traction usage, and trust in automation. Accident Analysis & Prevention 174 (2022), 106725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106725Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Brandenburg and E.-M. Skottke. 2014. Switching from manual to automated driving and reverse: Are drivers behaving more risky after highly automated driving?. In 17th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 2978–2983. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2014.6958168Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alessandro Calvi, Fabrizio D’Amico, Lua Bianchini Ciampoli, and Chiara Ferrante. 2020. Evaluation of driving performance after a transition from automated to manual control: a driving simulator study. Transportation Research Procedia 45 (2020), 755–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2020.02.101 Transport Infrastructure and systems in a changing world. Towards a more sustainable, reliable and smarter mobility.TIS Roma 2019 Conference Proceedings.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Valerian Chambon and Patrick Haggard. 2012. Sense of control depends on fluency of action selection, not motor performance. Cognition 125, 3 (2012), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.011Google ScholarCross Ref
- K Christoffersen and D Woods. 2002. 1. How to make automated systems team players. In Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research. Vol. 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3601(02)02003-9 ISSN: 14793601.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jacob Cohen. 1992. Statistical Power Analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science 1, 3 (1992), 98–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mark Colley, Ali Askari, Marcel Walch, Marcel Woide, and Enrico Rukzio. 2021. ORIAS: On-The-Fly Object Identification and Action Selection for Highly Automated Vehicles. In 13th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, Leeds United Kingdom, 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1145/3409118.3475134Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mark Colley, Christian Bräuner, Mirjam Lanzer, Marcel Walch, Martin Baumann, and Enrico Rukzio. 2020. Effect of Visualization of Pedestrian Intention Recognition on Trust and Cognitive Load. In 12th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Virtual Event, DC, USA) (AutomotiveUI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1145/3409120.3410648Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mark Colley, Pascal Jansen, Enrico Rukzio, and Jan Gugenheimer. 2022. SwiVR-Car-Seat: Exploring Vehicle Motion Effects on Interaction Quality in Virtual Reality Automated Driving Using a Motorized Swivel Seat. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 5, 4, Article 150 (dec 2022), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3494968Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mark Colley, Svenja Krauss, Mirjam Lanzer, and Enrico Rukzio. 2021. How Should Automated Vehicles Communicate Critical Situations? A Comparative Analysis of Visualization Concepts. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 5, 3, Article 94 (sep 2021), 23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3478111Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mark Colley, Dennis Wolf, Sabrina Böhm, Tobias Lahmann, Luca Porta, and Enrico Rukzio. 2021. Resync: Towards Transferring Somnolent Passengers to Consciousness. In Adjunct Publication of the 23rd International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction (Toulouse & Virtual, France) (MobileHCI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 1, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447527.3474847Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nicole Dillen, Marko Ilievski, Edith Law, Lennart E. Nacke, Krzysztof Czarnecki, and Oliver Schneider. 2020. Keep Calm and Ride Along: Passenger Comfort and Anxiety as Physiological Responses to Autonomous Driving Styles. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376247Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mica R. Endsley and Esin O. Kiris. 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 (June 1995), 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779064555Google ScholarCross Ref
- Frank Flemisch, Klaus Bengler, Heiner Bubb, Hermann Winner, and Ralph Bruder. 2014. Towards cooperative guidance and control of highly automated vehicles: H-Mode and Conduct-by-Wire. Ergonomics 57 (02 2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.869355Google ScholarCross Ref
- Würzburger Institute for Traffic Science GmbH. 2014. Driving simulation and SILAB.https://wivw.de/en/silab. [Online; accessed 07-APRIL-2022].Google Scholar
- Eva Fraedrich, Rita Cyganski, Ingo Wolf, and Barbara Lenz. 2016. User perspectives on autonomous driving: a use-case-driven study in Germany., 112 pages.Google Scholar
- Pnina Gershon, Sean Seaman, Bruce Mehler, Bryan Reimer, and Joseph Coughlin. 2021. Driver behavior and the use of automation in real-world driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention 158 (2021), 106217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106217Google ScholarCross Ref
- David Goedicke, Alexandra W.D. Bremers, Sam Lee, Fanjun Bu, Hiroshi Yasuda, and Wendy Ju. 2022. XR-OOM: MiXed Reality Driving Simulation with Real Cars for Research and Design. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 107, 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517704Google ScholarDigital Library
- BMW Group. 2021. DIE ZUKUNFT HAT BEGONNEN. https://www.bmwgroup.com/de/unternehmen/the-next-100-years.html. [Online; accessed 07-APRIL-2022].Google Scholar
- Sebastian Hergeth, Lutz Lorenz, Roman Vilimek, and Josef F. Krems. 2016. Keep Your Scanners Peeled: Gaze Behavior as a Measure of Automation Trust During Highly Automated Driving. Human Factors 58, 3 (2016), 509–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815625744 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815625744PMID: 26843570.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jean-Michel Hoc. 2000. From human – machine interaction to human – machine cooperation. Ergonomics 43, 7 (July 2000), 833–843. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401300409044Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jean-Michel Hoc, Mark S. Young, and Jean-Marc Blosseville. 2009. Cooperation between drivers and automation: implications for safety. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 10, 2 (2009), 135–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220802368856 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220802368856Google ScholarCross Ref
- Philipp Hock, Mark Colley, Ali Askari, Tobias Wagner, Martin Baumann, and Enrico Rukzio. 2022. Introducing VAMPIRE - Using Kinaesthetic Feedback in Virtual Reality for Automated Driving Experiments. In 14th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications(AutomotiveUI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3543174.3545252Google ScholarDigital Library
- Philipp Hock, Johannes Kraus, Marcel Walch, Nina Lang, and Martin Baumann. 2016. Elaborating Feedback Strategies for Maintaining Automation in Highly Automated Driving. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Ann Arbor, MI, USA) (Automotive’UI 16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1145/3003715.3005414Google ScholarDigital Library
- Harold Jeffreys. 1998. The theory of probability. OUP Oxford, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP.Google Scholar
- Robert E Kass and Adrian E Raftery. 1995. Bayes factors. Journal of the American statistical association 90, 430 (1995), 773–795.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Soyeon Kim, René van Egmond, and Riender Happee. 2021. Effects of user interfaces on take-over performance: A Review of the Empirical Evidence. Information 12, 4 (2021), 162.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Johannes Kraus, David Scholz, Dina Stiegemeier, and Martin Baumann. 2020. The More You Know: Trust Dynamics and Calibration in Highly Automated Driving and the Effects of Take-Overs, System Malfunction, and System Transparency. Human Factors 62, 5 (2020), 718–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819853686 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819853686PMID: 31233695.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. König and L. Neumayr. 2017. Users’ resistance towards radical innovations: The case of the self-driving car. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 44 (2017), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.10.013Google ScholarCross Ref
- Moritz Körber, Eva Baseler, and Klaus Bengler. 2018. Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving. Applied Ergonomics 66 (2018), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.07.006Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ellen J Langer and Judith Rodin. 1976. The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: a field experiment in an institutional setting.Journal of personality and social psychology 34, 2 (1976), 191.Google Scholar
- Lauren A Leotti, Sheena S Iyengar, and Kevin N Ochsner. 2010. Born to choose: The origins and value of the need for control. Trends in cognitive sciences 14, 10 (2010), 457–463.Google Scholar
- Timo Liljamo, Heikki Liimatainen, and Markus Pöllänen. 2018. Attitudes and concerns on automated vehicles. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 59 (2018), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.08.010Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mark McGill, Graham Wilson, Daniel Medeiros, and Stephen Anthony Brewster. 2022. PassengXR: A Low Cost Platform for Any-Car, Multi-User, Motion-Based Passenger XR Experiences. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Bend, OR, USA) (UIST ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 2, 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3526113.3545657Google ScholarDigital Library
- Natasha Merat, A. Hamish Jamson, Frank C.H. Lai, Michael Daly, and Oliver M.J. Carsten. 2014. Transition to manual: Driver behaviour when resuming control from a highly automated vehicle. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 27 (2014), 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.09.005 Vehicle Automation and Driver Behaviour.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Natasha Merat, Bobbie Seppelt, Tyron Louw, Johan Engström, John D Lee, Emma Johansson, Charles A Green, Satoshi Katazaki, Chris Monk, Makoto Itoh, 2019. The “Out-of-the-Loop” concept in automated driving: proposed definition, measures and implications. Cognition, Technology & Work 21, 1 (2019), 87–98.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Linda Miller, Jasmin Leitner, Johannes Kraus, Jieun Lee, Tatsuru Daimon, Satoshi Kitazaki, and Martin Baumann. 2022. Time to Arrival as Predictor for Uncertainty and Cooperative Driving Decisions in Highly Automated Driving. In 2022 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, IEEE, Aachen, Germany, 1048–1053.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Walter Morales-Alvarez, Oscar Sipele, Régis Léberon, Hadj Hamma Tadjine, and Cristina Olaverri-Monreal. 2020. Automated Driving: A Literature Review of the Take over Request in Conditional Automation. Electronics 9, 12 (2020), 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9122087Google ScholarCross Ref
- Richard Morey. 2022. Richarddmorey/BayesFactor. Cardiff University. Retrieved 6 September, 2022 from https://github.com/richarddmorey/BayesFactorGoogle Scholar
- Bonnie M. Muir and Neville Moray. 1996. Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics 39, 3 (1996), 429–460. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139608964474 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139608964474PMID: 8849495.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jasper Pauwelussen and Philippus J. Feenstra. 2010. Driver Behavior Analysis During ACC Activation and Deactivation in a Real Traffic Environment. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 11, 2 (2010), 329–338. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2010.2043099Google ScholarDigital Library
- Praveena Penmetsa, Pezhman Sheinidashtegol, Aibek Musaev, Emmanuel Kofi Adanu, and Matthew Hudnall. 2021. Effects of the autonomous vehicle crashes on public perception of the technology. IATSS research 45, 4 (2021), 485–492.Google Scholar
- Lawrence C. Perlmuter and Richard A. Monty. 1977. The importance of perceived control: fact or fantasy?American scientist 65 6 (1977), 759–65.Google Scholar
- Bastian Pfleging, Maurice Rang, and Nora Broy. 2016. Investigating User Needs for Non-Driving-Related Activities during Automated Driving. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (Rovaniemi, Finland) (MUM ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1145/3012709.3012735Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jürgen Pichen, Linda Miller, and Martin Baumann. 2021. Cooperative Speed Regulation in Automated Vehicles: A Comparison Between a Touch, Pedal, and Button Interface as the Input Modality. In 2021 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1109/IV48863.2021.9575489Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jackeline Rios-Torres and Andreas A Malikopoulos. 2017. Impact of connected and automated vehicles on traffic flow. In 2017 IEEE 20th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). IEEE, IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 1–6.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fabienne Roche, Sandra Becker, and Manfred Thüring. 2022. What happens when drivers of automated vehicles take over control in critical lane change situations?Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 84 (2022), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.11.021Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fabienne Roche, Manfred Thüring, and Anna K. Trukenbrod. 2020. What happens when drivers of automated vehicles take over control in critical brake situations?Accident Analysis & Prevention 144 (2020), 105588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105588Google ScholarCross Ref
- Annika Stampf, Mark Colley, and Enrico Rukzio. 2022. Towards Implicit Interaction in Highly Automated Vehicles - A Systematic Literature Review. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, MHCI, Article 191 (sep 2022), 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3546726Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xiaomei Tan and Yiqi Zhang. 2022. The effects of takeover request lead time on drivers situation awareness for manually exiting from freeways: A web-based study on level 3 automated vehicles. Accident Analysis & Prevention 168 (2022), 106593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106593Google ScholarCross Ref
- SAE Taxonomy. 2014. Definitions for terms related to on-road motor vehicle automated driving systems. Technical Report. Technical report, SAE International.Google Scholar
- Robert Tscharn, Marc Erich Latoschik, Diana Löffler, and Jörn Hurtienne. 2017. “Stop over There”: Natural Gesture and Speech Interaction for Non-Critical Spontaneous Intervention in Autonomous Driving. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (Glasgow, UK) (ICMI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1145/3136755.3136787Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hanneke Hooft van Huysduynen, Jacques Terken, and Berry Eggen. 2018. Why Disable the Autopilot?. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Toronto, ON, Canada) (AutomotiveUI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1145/3239060.3239063Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marcel Walch, Mark Colley, and Michael Weber. 2019. CooperationCaptcha: On-the-fly object labeling for highly automated vehicles. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–6.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marcel Walch, Kristin Mühl, Johannes Kraus, Tanja Stoll, Martin Baumann, and Michael Weber. 2017. From Car-Driver-Handovers to Cooperative Interfaces: Visions for Driver–Vehicle Interaction in Automated Driving. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49448-7_10Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marcel Walch, Kristin Mühl, Martin Baumann, and Michael Weber. 2018. Click or Hold: Usability Evaluation of Maneuver Approval Techniques in Highly Automated Driving. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Montreal QC Canada, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188614Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marcel Walch, Tobias Sieber, Philipp Hock, Martin Baumann, and Michael Weber. 2016. Towards Cooperative Driving: Involving the Driver in an Autonomous Vehicle’s Decision Making. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications(Automotive’UI 16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 261–268. https://doi.org/10.1145/3003715.3005458Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marcel Walch, Marcel Woide, Kristin Mühl, Martin Baumann, and Michael Weber. 2019. Cooperative Overtaking: Overcoming Automated Vehicles’ Obstructed Sensor Range via Driver Help. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Utrecht, Netherlands) (AutomotiveUI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1145/3342197.3344531Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hermann Winner and Stephan Hakuli. 2006. Conduct-by-wire–following a new paradigm for driving into the future. In Proceedings of FISITA world automotive congress, Vol. 22. Citeseer, Yokohama, Japan, 27.Google Scholar
- Marcel Woide, Mark Colley, Nicole Damm, and Martin Baumann. 2022. Effect of System Capability Verification on Conflict, Trust, and Behavior in Automated Vehicles. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (AutomotiveUI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1145/3543174.3545253Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marcel Woide, Dina Stiegemeier, and Martin Baumann. 2019. A Methodical Approach to Examine Conflicts in Context of Driver - Autonomous Vehicle - Interaction. In Proceedings of the 10th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design: driving assessment 2019. University of Iowa, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, 314–320. https://doi.org/10.17077/drivingassessment.1712Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marcel Woide, Dina Stiegemeier, Stefan Pfattheicher, and Martin Baumann. 2021. Measuring driver-vehicle cooperation: Development and validation of the Human-Machine-Interaction-Interdependence Questionnaire (HMII). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 83 (2021), 424–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.11.003Google ScholarCross Ref
- Johanna Wörle, Barbara Metz, and Martin Baumann. 2021. Sleep inertia in automated driving: Post-sleep take-over and driving performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention 150 (2021), 105918.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- I’ve Got the Power: Exploring the Impact of Cooperative Systems on Driver-Initiated Takeovers and Trust in Automated Vehicles
Recommendations
Effect of System Capability Verification on Conflict, Trust, and Behavior in Automated Vehicles
AutomotiveUI '22: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular ApplicationsWith automated driving, vehicles are no longer just tools but become teammates, which enable an increasing space of new interaction possibilities. By changing the relationship between the drivers and the automated vehicles (AV), conflicts regarding ...
Interdependence theory in humans’ interaction with automated vehicles: The impact of perceived situational factors on trust and cooperation
AbstractWith the progressive development of automated vehicles (AVs), drivers and AVs need to share driving tasks as the AVs are yet unable to cope with every traffic situation. As these systems continue to evolve, AVs are increasingly perceived as ...
Highlights- Applying interdependence theory to driver–vehicle interaction.
- Framework to describe the social evaluation of interaction with automated vehicles.
- Influence of the social interaction with automated vehicles on trust and ...
Parametric-based path generation for automated vehicles at roundabouts
This paper shows simulated/real experiments with automated vehicles in roundabouts.Real-time planning considering two-lane roundabout, taking different exits.G1 path continuity, highly reduced curvature steps and comfort considerations. Urban ...
Comments