Drivers’ Interaction with, and Perception Toward Semi-autonomous Vehicles in Naturalistic Settings

Kim, Jisun; Revell, Kirsten M. A.; Langdon, Patrick; Bradley, Mark; Politis, Ioannis; Thompson, Simon G.; Skrypchuk, Lee; O'Donoghue, J.P.; Richardson, Joy; Clark, Jediah R.; Roberts, Aaron P.; Mouzakitis, Alexandros; Stanton, Neville A.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39512-4_4

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on classic cognitive models of attention ( Kahneman, 1973 ; Wickens, 2002 ), driving-related cognitive demands are defined as all cognitive and mental processing resources required to perform a driving task. Some studies have suggested that there may be significant cognitive demands (e.g., workload) during automated driving compared to manual driving ( Solís-Marcos et al, 2018 ; Kim et al, 2020 ). However, other research has found cognitive demands during partially automated driving may actually be reduced ( Biondi et al, 2018 ; Heikoop et al, 2019 ; Zhai and Lu, 2019 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on previous work, the current study considered three alternative hypotheses. First, if partially automated driving leads to high arousal and high cognitive demands (e.g., workload and stress; Solís-Marcos et al, 2018 ; Kim et al, 2020 ), then, a significant increase in heart rate, a decrease in RMSSD, and an increase in the DRT reaction time rate would be expected when compared to manual driving. Second, if partially automated driving leads to low arousal and low cognitive demands (e.g., drowsiness and boredom; Biondi et al, 2018 ; Heikoop et al, 2019 ; Zhai and Lu, 2019 ), then a significant decrease in heart rate, an increase in RMSSD, and an increase in DRT reaction time would be expected when compared to manual driving.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

No Difference in Arousal or Cognitive Demands Between Manual and Partially Automated Driving: A Multi-Method On-Road Study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionPartial driving automation is not always reliable and requires that drivers maintain readiness to take over control and manually operate the vehicle. Little is known about differences in drivers’ arousal and cognitive demands under partial automation and how it may make it difficult for drivers to transition from automated to manual modes. This research examined whether there are differences in drivers’ arousal and cognitive demands during manual versus partial automation driving.MethodWe compared arousal (using heart rate) and cognitive demands (using the root mean square of successive differences in normal heartbeats; RMSSD, and Detection Response Task; DRT) while 39 younger (M = 28.82 years) and 32 late-middle-aged (M = 52.72 years) participants drove four partially automated vehicles (Cadillac, Nissan Rogue, Tesla, and Volvo) on interstate highways. If compared to manual driving, drivers’ arousal and cognitive demands were different under partial automation, then corresponding differences in heart rate, RMSSD, and DRT would be expected. Alternatively, if drivers’ arousal and cognitive demands were similar in manual and partially automated driving, no difference in the two driving modes would be expected.ResultsResults suggest no significant differences in heart rate, RMSSD, or DRT reaction time performance between manual and partially automated modes of driving for either younger or late-middle-aged adults across the four test vehicles. A Bayes Factor analysis suggested that heart rate, RMSSD, and DRT data showed extreme evidence in favor of the null hypothesis.ConclusionThis novel study conducted on real roads with a representative sample provides important evidence of no difference in arousal and cognitive demands. Younger and late-middle-aged motorists who are new to partial automation are able to maintain arousal and cognitive demands comparable to manual driving while using the partially automated technology. Drivers who are more experienced with partially automated technology may respond differently than those with limited prior experience.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No Difference in Arousal or Cognitive Demands Between Manual and Partially Automated Driving: A Multi-Method On-Road Study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As electric and self-driving vehicles become more and more popular, the display systems that are part of these vehicles will become increasingly important and complex, playing a major role in the overall driving experience. In connection with the previous, drivers' perception has been taken into account in the field of using instrument panels, driver behavior, safety assessment using driving simulators and field data, as well as surrogate safety measures (see for example [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As it can be noticed, refs. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] did not involve dashboard symbols indicating automobile trouble and safety status.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Usability of Certain Symbols Indicating Automobile Safety Status Based on Youth Assessment

Manojlovic,

Zunjic,

Trifunović

et al. 2023

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research presented in this paper refers to the possibility to understand the information presented by symbols, which indicate safety status and possible troubles regarding automobiles and driving. The testing included sixteen symbols, six of which were ISO-verified and recommended symbols. The study included 204 youth respondents. The study used a multidisciplinary, ergonomic approach, based on research of the usability of symbols. The basic task of subjects was to recognize the symbols and to rate their confidence on the five-point scale that they gave exact answers. For each symbol, hypotheses about the proportion of correct answers at the population level were tested, applying the inferential statistics technique. The ISO criterion of 67% successful symbol recognition was adopted as the limit value for the justification of the use of symbols. The test results showed that eight out of sixteen symbols did not meet this criterion. The results of this research indicate that it is necessary to take certain measures in order to improve the understanding of the function of symbols on vehicle dashboards. One of the proposed measures consists in the improvement of training courses in driving schools, which from a theoretical but also a practical aspect should include education about symbols on car dashboards, primarily those responsible for informing about the safety status. In addition, a redesign of the symbols that had the lowest recognition rate can be recommended.

show abstract

The iconography of vehicle automation—a focus group study

Richardson

Revell

Kim

et al. 2021

Hum.-Intell. Syst. Integr.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SAE level 2 and 3 semi-autonomous vehicles are widely available but, due to the nature of automation, their in-vehicle displays are required to communicate more complex information to the driver. Examination of interfaces from a variety of manufacturers revealed a clear lack of consistency in the way key information is displayed. Different manufacturers have adopted icons varying in shape and colour to convey the same message. When driving a semi-autonomous vehicle, mode awareness is critical for trust, performance and safety. Standardisation of icons has been shown to have many benefits including opening products up to wider international markets by helping overcome language and cultural barriers, by providing a method of communication which can surpass them. However, the current lack of standardisation in icon design could cause mode confusion and has little cross-vehicle compatibility. To understand the impact of mode confusion on users, a focus group was held in which participants were asked to interpret the meaning of icons from a variety of different driver interfaces. Ambiguity in user interpretations makes the case for the introduction of new ISO standard icons to better support drivers in SAE level 2 and 3 automated vehicles.

show abstract

Drivers’ Interaction with, and Perception Toward Semi-autonomous Vehicles in Naturalistic Settings

Cited by 4 publications

References 14 publications

No Difference in Arousal or Cognitive Demands Between Manual and Partially Automated Driving: A Multi-Method On-Road Study

No Difference in Arousal or Cognitive Demands Between Manual and Partially Automated Driving: A Multi-Method On-Road Study

Usability of Certain Symbols Indicating Automobile Safety Status Based on Youth Assessment

The iconography of vehicle automation—a focus group study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About