Effects of scheduled manual driving on drowsiness and response to take over request: A simulator study towards understanding drivers in automated driving

Wu, Yanbin; Kihara, Ken; Takeda, Yuji; Sato, Tomomasa; Akamatsu, Motoyuki; Kitazaki, Satoshi

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2019.01.013

Cited by 54 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, it is possible that constantly transitioning between manual and partially automated driving modes could be a demanding task for some motorists. For instance, one study found that older adults were slower at switching between manual and partially automated modes ( Wu et al, 2019 ). Future research should examine transition-related driving demands on motorists while driving partially automated vehicles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

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: Discussionmentioning

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

“…Such an approach is needed not just to increase confidence in CAVs as technology (one third to one-half of respondents showed concerns in one or more aspects of CAVs), but also to prevent specific issues related with the implementation of CAVs. For example, taking over a CAV represents one of the major challenges related to the introduction of CAVs, especially in level 3 of SAE (Smith, 2013;Wu et al, 2019). Cognitive and psychomotricity limits of the human operators should not be taken lightly, especially when less than half of the respondents were concerned with the idea of learning how to operate CAVs would be difficult for them.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public opinion on connected and automated vehicles: the Czech context

Gabrhel¹,

Ježek²,

Havlíčková³

2020

ToTS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite limited experience with Connected and automated vehicles (CAVs), the general public has been developing beliefs and attitudes about them. These expected benefits, concerns, trust, and other psychological factors play an important role in the way of accepting and adopting this new technology and as such should be available to various stakeholders. This study surveys the Czech public perceptions and attitudes relevant to policy-making in the area of CAVs. Between November 2017 and January 2018, a representative survey was conducted among the general population in the Czech Republic. Overall, 1 065 randomly selected persons aged above 15 were personally interviewed. The sample, there were 523 (49%) women; the average age was 50 years (SD = 17). Results showed that more than 65% of participants (i.e. 693) heard about CAVs before the survey. At the same time, 87% of the respondents with previous knowledge of the topic (i.e. 586) declared only limited awareness regarding CAVs. When it comes to the general opinion on CAVs, almost 40% of the respondents stated "rather positive" or "very positive" view. Also, more than 50% of the respondents associated wide usage of CAVs with better traffic safety. The majority of those sharing the negative opinion was members of an older generation, achieved a lower educational level and having lower household income. When it comes to the policy recommendations, the first wave of implementation should focus on applications in the more structured and controlled environment such as airports or metro.

show abstract

“…Other works assessing take-over maneuvers can be found in [110] where different drivers are evaluated during a failure of the autonomous system, and in [111] where truck drivers face time critical take-over situations while performing a nondriving tasks. In [112], the authors evaluate how scheduled manual driving affects drowsiness and contribute to better take-over maneuvers when needed. In [113], an autonomous emergency braking system (AEB) that adapts to road friction is evaluated in comparison to a non-adaptable system.…”

Section: B Autonomous Systems Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Driving Simulation Technology and Applications

Bruck

Haycock

Emadi

2021

IEEE Open J. Veh. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Driving simulation has become a very useful tool for vehicle design and research in industry and educational institutes. This paper provides a review of driving simulator components, including the vehicle dynamics model, the motion system, and the virtual environment, and how they interact with the human perceptual system in order to create the illusion of the driving. In addition, a sample of current state-of-the-art vehicle simulators and algorithms are described. Finally, current applications are discussed, such as driver-centered studies, chassis and powertrain design, and autonomous systems development.

show abstract

Effects of scheduled manual driving on drowsiness and response to take over request: A simulator study towards understanding drivers in automated driving

Cited by 54 publications

References 28 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

Public opinion on connected and automated vehicles: the Czech context

A Review of Driving Simulation Technology and Applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About