skip to main content
10.1145/3411763.3451809acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Arousal Responses to Regular Acceleration Events Divide Drivers Into High and Low Groups: A Naturalistic Pilot Study of Accelarousal and Its Implications to Human-Centered Design

Authors Info & Claims
Published:08 May 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

We conducted a daytime naturalistic driving study that involved the same 19 km town itinerary under similar light traffic and fair-weather conditions. We applied a real-time unobtrusive design that could serve as template in future driving studies. In this design, driving parameters and drivers’ arousal levels were captured via a vehicle data acquisition and thermal imaging system, respectively. Analyzing the data, we found that about half of the n = 11 healthy participants exhibited significantly larger arousal reactions to acceleration with respect to the rest of the sample. Acceleration events were of the mundane type, such as entering a highway from an entrance ramp or starting from a red light. The results suggest an underlying grouping of normal drivers with respect to the loading induced by commonplace acceleration. The finding carries implications for certain professions and the design of semi-autonomous vehicles.

References

  1. Fatema Akbar, Ayse Elvan Bayraktaroglu, Pradeep Buddharaju, Dennis Rodrigo Da Cunha Silva, Ge Gao, Ted Grover, Ricardo Gutierrez-Osuna, Nathan Cooper Jones, Gloria Mark, Ioannis Pavlidis, 2019. Email makes you sweat: Examining email interruptions and stress using thermal imaging. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Rahmi Akçelik and DC Biggs. 1987. Acceleration profile models for vehicles in road traffic. Transportation Science 21, 1 (1987), 36–54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Georg W Alpers, Frank H Wilhelm, and Walton T Roth. 2005. Psychophysiological assessment during exposure in driving phobic patients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 114, 1 (2005), 126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Frank B. Baker and Lawrence J. Hubert. 1975. Measuring the Power of Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 70, 349 (1975), 31–38. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.1975.10480256Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Wolfram Boucsein. 2012. Electrodermal Activity. Springer Science & Business Media, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Marilynn B Brewer and William D Crano. 2000. Research design and issues of validity. In Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology, Harry T. Reis and Charles M. Judd (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 3–16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Serge Debernard, C Chauvin, R Pokam, and Sabine Langlois. 2016. Designing human-machine interface for autonomous vehicles. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49, 19 (2016), 609–614.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. D. Defays. 1977. An efficient algorithm for a complete link method. Comput. J. 20, 4 (April 1977), 364–366. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/20.4.364Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. 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. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Laura Eboli, Gabriella Mazzulla, and Giuseppe Pungillo. 2016. Combining speed and acceleration to define car users’ safe or unsafe driving behaviour. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 68 (2016), 113–125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Sandra G Hart and Lowell E Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in Psychology. Vol. 52. North Holland, Amsterdam, Holland, 139–183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Tung Huynh and Ioannis Pavlidis. 2021. Accelarousal Study Dataset - NAT 1. Open Science Frameworkhttps://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/974VF.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Liberty Mutual Insurance. 2020. Welcome to RightTrack by Liberty Mutual. https://www.libertymutual.com/righttrack. Accessed: 2020-08-16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. J3016_201806 2018. Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles. Standard. SAE International, Warrendale, PA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Gary Long. 2000. Acceleration characteristics of starting vehicles. Transportation Research Record 1737, 1 (2000), 58–70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Ismail Bin Mohamad and Dauda Usman. 2013. Standardization and Its Effects on K-Means Clustering Algorithm. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 6, 17 (September 2013), 3299–3303. https://doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.6.3638Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Daryl B O’Connor, Mark Conner, Fiona Jones, Brian McMillan, and Eamonn Ferguson. 2009. Exploring the benefits of conscientiousness: An investigation of the role of daily stressors and health behaviors. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 37, 2 (2009), 184–196.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. George Panagopoulos and Ioannis Pavlidis. 2020. Forecasting markers of habitual driving behaviors associated With crash risk. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 21, 2(2020), 841–851.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. I. Pavlidis, M. Dcosta, S. Taamneh, M. Manser, T. Ferris, R. Wunderlich, E. Akleman, and P. Tsiamyrtzis. 2016. Dissecting driver behaviors under cognitive, emotional, sensorimotor, and mixed stressors. Scientific Reports 6 (May 2016), 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25651Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. I. Pavlidis, A. Khatri, P. Buddharaju, M. Manser, R. Wunderlich, E. Akleman, and P. Tsiamyrtzis. 2018. Biofeedback arrests sympathetic and behavioral effects in distracted driving. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing(2018), 13 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Peter J. Rousseeuw. 1987. Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 20 (November 1987), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Dvijesh Shastri, Manos Papadakis, Panagiotis Tsiamyrtzis, Barbara Bass, and Ioannis Pavlidis. 2012. Perinasal imaging of physiological stress and its affective potential. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 3, 3 (2012), 366–378.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Dvijesh Shastri, Ioannis Pavlidis, and Avinash Wesley. 2009. A method to monitor operator overloading. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, New York, NY, USA, 169–175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. H. Sorensen, D. Jones, M. Heideman, and C. Burrus. 1987. Real-valued fast Fourier transform algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing 35, 6(1987), 849–863.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Salah Taamneh, Panagiotis Tsiamyrtzis, Malcolm Dcosta, Pradeep Buddharaju, Ashik Khatri, Michael Manser, Thomas Ferris, Robert Wunderlich, and Ioannis Pavlidis. 2017. A multimodal dataset for various forms of distracted driving. Scientific Data 4(2017), 170110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Panagiotis Tsiamyrtzis, Malcolm Dcosta, Dvijesh Shastri, Eswar Prasad, and Ioannis Pavlidis. 2016. Delineating the operational envelope of mobile and conventional EDA sensing on key body locations. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 5665–5674. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858536Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Dajun Wang, Xin Pei, Li Li, and Danya Yao. 2017. Risky driver recognition based on vehicle speed time series. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 48, 1 (2017), 63–71.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Yan Zhou, P. Tsiamyrtzis, P. Lindner, I. Timofeyev, and I. Pavlidis. 2013. Spatiotemporal Smoothing as a Basis for Facial Tissue Tracking in Thermal Imaging. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 60, 5 (May 2013), 1280–1289. https://doi.org/10.1109/tbme.2012.2232927Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Arousal Responses to Regular Acceleration Events Divide Drivers Into High and Low Groups: A Naturalistic Pilot Study of Accelarousal and Its Implications to Human-Centered Design
    Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI EA '21: Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2021
      2965 pages
      ISBN:9781450380959
      DOI:10.1145/3411763

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 8 May 2021

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • poster
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format