Driver Behavior in an Emergency Situation in the Automated Highway System

Waard, Dick de; Hulst, M. van; Hoedemaeker, M; Brookhuis, Karel

doi:10.1207/sthf0101_7

Cited by 101 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…the driver takes risks he would not have taken without an automated system. Operators then tend to be vulnerable to monitoring failures (Bagheri & Jamieson, 2004;Bailey & Scerbo, 2007) and tend to exhibit longer reaction times (Beller, Heesen, & Vollrath, 2013;Helldin, Falkman, Riveiro, & Davidsson, 2013) or poorer reaction quality in critical events (McGuirl & Sarter, 2006;de Waard, van der Hulst, Hoedemaeker, & Brookhuis, 1999). Hence, not only a minimum level but an appropriate level of trust is crucial: The operator has to know the capabilities of an automated system and should monitor it adequately when it is close to the limits of its capability (Carlson, Drury, Desai, Kwak, & Yanco, 2014).…”

Section: The Role Of Trust In Automated Drivingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trust in automation is a key determinant for the adoption of automated systems and their appropriate use. Therefore, it constitutes an essential research area for the introduction of automated vehicles to road traffic. In this study, we investigated the influence of trust promoting (Trust promoted group) and trust lowering (Trust lowered group) introductory information on reported trust, reliance behavior and takeover performance. Forty participants encountered three situations in a 17-minute highway drive in a conditionally automated vehicle (SAE Level 3). Situation 1 and Situation 3 were non-critical situations where a take-over was optional. Situation 2 represented a critical situation where a take-over was necessary to avoid a collision. A non-driving-related task (NDRT) was presented between the situations to record the allocation of visual attention. Participants reporting a higher trust level spent less time looking at the road or instrument cluster and more time looking at the NDRT. The manipulation of introductory information resulted in medium differences in reported trust and influenced participants' reliance behavior. Participants of the Trust promoted group looked less at the road or instrument cluster and more at the NDRT. The odds of participants of the Trust promoted group to overrule the automated driving system in the non-critical situations were 3.65 times (Situation 1) to 5 times (Situation 3) higher. In Situation 2, the Trust promoted group's mean take-over time was extended by 1154 ms and the mean minimum time-to-collision was 933 ms shorter. Six participants from the Trust promoted group compared to no participant of the Trust lowered group collided with the obstacle. The results demonstrate that the individual trust level influences how much drivers monitor the environment while performing an NDRT. Introductory information influences this trust level, reliance on an automated driving system, and if a critical take-over situation can be successfully solved.

show abstract

Section: The Role Of Trust In Automated Drivingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In consideration of the increasing automation of the driving task, overreliance on a driver assistance system's actions, accompanied by an incomplete mental representation of the current driving situation (situation awareness) represent major safety concerns based on the requirement that drivers must be prepared to intervene appropriately to take over manual control in case of a system failure (Brookhuis & De Waard, 2005;Carsten & Nilsson, 2001;De Waard, Van der Hulst, Hoedemaeker, & Brookhuis, 1999;Nilsson, 2005;Stanton & Young, 1998). Given the time-horizon available in suddenly evolving or unexpected situations, the driver's readiness to react accordingly in a timely manner is a prerequisite for safe driving.…”

Section: Zusammenfassungmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are indeed a number of studies that show that automation can reduce mental workload (e.g., De Waard et al, 1999;Harris, Hancock, Arthur, & Caird, 1995;Hoedemaeker & Brookhuis, 1998;Ma & Kaber, 2005;Masalonis, Duley, & Parasuraman, 1999;Stanton & Young, 2005;M. S. Young & Stanton, 1997).…”

Section: Increasing Reliance Due To Underloadmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a driving simulator study, De Waard et al (1999) tested different conditions of automated and manual driving. In the two automated driving conditions, drivers drove in a platoon of cars.…”

Section: Increasing Reliance Due To Underloadmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participants that were made accountable for their monitoring accuracy were found to verify to a greater extent the decisions made by the automated aid and to make significantly less omission and commission errors (failures to detect automation misses and false alarms, respectively; see also chapter 2.3.3.3) compared to the other experimental groups. In a driving simulator study by De Waard et al (1999) participants perceived significantly higher risk when the driving task was automated and time headway to the car in front was fixed to a short interval (0.25 s) compared to a long interval (1 s). The higher level of perceived risk was paralleled by significant higher ratings of arousal and mental effort, presumably because the anticipated performance consequences of a system failure were more severe when time headway was short and drivers thus put more effort in system monitoring.…”

Section: Evidence For Mental Effort Regulation In Studies On Operatormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations