From Mackworth’s clock to the open road: A literature review on driver vigilance task operationalization

Abstract

Objective: This review aimed to characterize tasks applied in driving research, in terms of instructions/conditions, signal types/rates, and component features in comparison to the classic vigilance literature. Background: Driver state monitoring is facing increased attention with evolving vehicle automation, and real-time assessment of driver vigilance could provide widespread value across various levels (e.g., from monitoring the alertness of manual drivers to verifications of readiness in transitions of control between automated and manual driving). However, task requirement comparisons between the classic vigilance research and vigilance in car driving have not to date been systematically conducted. Method: This study decomposed the highest-cited vigilance literature of each full decade since the 1940s for the situational features of the renowned vigilance decrement phenomenon originating from Mackworth (1948). A consensus set of 18 different situational features was compiled and included for example an (1) isolated (2) subject. .. perceiving (3) rare (4) signals. .. against (10) frequent (11) noise. .. in a (17) prolonged (18) task. Next, we reviewed 69 experimental vigilance task operationalizations (i.e., required signal detection and response) within 39 publications concerned with driving vigilance. All vigilance tasks were coded as ''driving vigilance tasks" or ''non-driving vigilance tasks" based on the perceptual signal and response action both belonging to normal driving activity or not. Presence, absence, and unreported presence/absence of each of the 18 features was rated for each task respectively as ''overlap", ''contrary", and ''unspecified". In conjunction, instructions/environmental conditions, signal definitions, signal rates, and summaries of the experimental vigilance tasks were extracted. Results: A majority of driving vigilance tasks was performed in simulators (69%) compared to on-road (28%) and watching videos (3%) along with large differences in task conditions. Participants had to maintain fixed speed/lane positions in the simulators in higher proportion (74%) than on the road (36%) where they had only to drive ''normally" and/or by loose conventions like ''according to the law" more often (55% versus 15%). Additionally, presence of other traffic was found more often on-road (91%) than in simulators (48%). A specification of signals to detect and react to was found present within/for driving less often (59%) than alongside/in conjunction with driving (100%). Likewise, rates of signals (i.e., frequency of signal occurrence) were reported more often for non-driving vigilance tasks (80%) than in driving vigilance tasks (21%). For driving vigilance tasks, the highest overlap was 12 of the 18 features present (67%). On average, results showed relatively low levels of classic feature overlap (36%) with high rates of unspecified feature presence (46%) for driving vigilance tasks compared to non-driving vigilance tasks with higher classic feature overlap (64%) and fewer features unspecified (1...

Is partially automated driving a bad idea? Observations from an on-road study

“…This is a pertinent research finding as it adds to the growing body of literature that shows that drivers are at risk of becoming disengaged from the driving task, both for momentary and prolonged periods during automated phases of driving (e.g. Cabrall et al, 2016;Endsley, 2017;Heikoop et al, 2017;Kyriakidis et al, 2017). The role of the driver is likely to shift throughout the duration of a journey between DD, DM and DND .…”

Redesigning Today’s Driving Automation Toward Adaptive Backup Control With Context-Based and Invisible Interfaces

“…Even if people wanted to supervise driving automation, many decades of human factors research, from Mackworth (1950) to Hancock (2017), suggest risks when humans are tasked to monitor automated processes over extended periods of mostly successful operation. Such risks have been substantiated by recent reviews specific to the driving domain (e.g., Cabrall, Happee, et al, 2016;Gonçalves et al, 2017) and demonstrated in a recent driving simulator experiment (Greenlee et al, 2018).…”

How to keep drivers engaged while supervising driving automation? A literature survey and categorisation of six solution areas

“…A resounding result from Norman Mackworth (1948) was that despite instruction and motivation to succeed in a sustained attention task (used as an analogy to the critical vigilance of WWII radar operators watching and waiting for enemy target blips on their monitor screens), human detection performance dropped in relation to time-on-task. Thousands of reports have since been published on the challenges of human vigilance, also known as 'sustained attention' (Cabrall, Happee, and De Winter 2016;Craig 1984;Frankmann and Adams 1962). Bainbridge (1983) observed the irony that human supervisory errors are expected when operators are left to supervise an automated process put in place to resolve manual control errors.…”

“…Compared to other contributing components to vigilance decrements (cf. Cabrall, Happee, and De Winter 2016), the duration of watch period is expected to be an attractive dimension for human-automation interaction system designers due to its intuitive and simplistic operationalisation even despite its potential to interact with other vigilance factors.…”