Effects of Level 3 Automated Vehicle Drivers’ Fatigue on Their Take-Over Behaviour: A Literature Review

Abstract

With advancements in automated driving technology, Level 3 vehicle automation has been proliferating. In Level 3, drivers can turn their attention to things unrelated to driving and only takeover in cases of emergency. However, the transition to the main driving task can be affected by different physical and psychological changes in drivers such as fatigue and distraction. Although existing research in the field of manual driving has demonstrated the effects of fatigue on driver performance, there have been relatively few studies on fatigue in the field of automated driving. Fatigue decreases drivers’ alertness, which can prevent drivers from conducting necessary emergency takeover manoeuvres in a safe and timely manner. This systematic literature review was conducted to establish relationships between driving fatigue and takeover behaviour in the existing literature on Level 3 automated driving systems. Different from existing reviews of driving fatigue, this paper focuses on the commonly used and most effective evaluation indicators of driving fatigue and further discusses the methods to improve the takeover efficiency of fatigued drivers. This is the first detailed systematic review of general relationships between fatigue in automated driving and drivers’ takeover behaviours when the vehicle sends a takeover request. Researchers are invited to expand on the findings here to further clarify the findings on the associations between driver fatigue indicators in automated vehicle driving and drivers’ takeover response times.

Using driver monitoring to estimate readiness in automation: A conceptual model based on simulator experimental data

“…Operational metrics used as a proxy for the construct Literature evidence of the metric being used as a proxy for the said construct Endsley, 1995Schnebelen et al, 2020Zeeb et al, 2015Zeeb et al 2015Clark et al, 2017Victor et al, 2009Louw et al, 2016EuroNCAP, 2022Louw & Merat, 2017Zhou et al, 2021Merat et al, 2019Kim et al, 2020Victor et al, 2009Deo & Triveddi, 2020 EuroNCAP, 2022 Driver's physiological state Radhakrishnan et al, 2020Choi et al, 2020Wilbanks et al, 2021Hecht et al, 2018Shojaeizadeh et al, 2016Perello-Marc et al, 2022Radhakrishnan et al, 2020Körber et al, 2015Perello-Marc et al, 2022Zhou et al, 2020Zhou et al, 2022Feldhütter et al, 2018Radhakrishnan et al, 2021Mariajoseph et al, 2020Guo et al, 2021Kang, 2013Sun et al, 2020Johns, 2003…”

“…On the other hand, the lack of interaction if the physical control of the driving task may lead to boredom. This lack of stimuli may also lead to increased levels of sleepiness and subsequent fatigue, also affecting drivers' ability to resume control of the vehicle (Guo et al, 2021).…”

Pilots in the Evolving Urban Air Mobility: From Manned to Unmanned Aviation

“…A study conducted by the European Cockpit Association (ECA) shows that around 50% of the surveyed pilots reported falling asleep involuntarily in the cockpit or experiencing episodes of micro-sleep, when almost 80% of fatigued pilots would not file a fatigue report or consider themselves unfit to fly [19]. As manned operations would contribute to accumulated data for the autonomous control and fatigue assessment, fatigue management rules for eVTOL pilots shall be flexible enough to accommodate the new technologies [20].…”

Incorporating driver expectations into a taxonomy of transfers of control for automated vehicles

“…Expected vs. unexpected TOC. The word "unexpected" was interchangeably used with "unplanned" takeovers in previous literature (e.g., Guo et al, 2021;Large et al, 2019). However, while the planned and unplanned frame emphasizes the system's view, the expected vs. unexpected frame can accentuate the driver's perspective.…”