Getting Back Into the Loop: The Perceptual-Motor Determinants of Successful Transitions out of Automated Driving

Abstract

Objective: To present a structured, narrative review highlighting research into human perceptual-motor coordination that can be applied to automated vehicle (AV)–human transitions. Background: Manual control of vehicles is made possible by the coordination of perceptual-motor behaviors (gaze and steering actions), where active feedback loops enable drivers to respond rapidly to ever-changing environments. AVs will change the nature of driving to periods of monitoring followed by the human driver taking over manual control. The impact of this change is currently poorly understood. Method: We outline an explanatory framework for understanding control transitions based on models of human steering control. This framework can be summarized as a perceptual-motor loop that requires (a) calibration and (b) gaze and steering coordination. A review of the current experimental literature on transitions is presented in the light of this framework. Results: The success of transitions are often measured using reaction times, however, the perceptual-motor mechanisms underpinning steering quality remain relatively unexplored. Conclusion: Modeling the coordination of gaze and steering and the calibration of perceptual-motor control will be crucial to ensure safe and successful transitions out of automated driving. Application: This conclusion poses a challenge for future research on AV-human transitions. Future studies need to provide an understanding of human behavior that will be sufficient to capture the essential characteristics of drivers reengaging control of their vehicle. The proposed framework can provide a guide for investigating specific components of human control of steering and potential routes to improving manual control recovery.

Estimating the out-of-the-loop phenomenon from visual strategies during highly automated driving

“…Their actions in turn generate information. By contrast, starting with level 2 automation, the perceptual-motor loop is neutralized, which has consequences for perception and cognition (Mole et al, 2019). At level 3, driver engagement in secondary tasks may intensify those consequences, with long periods of distraction from the driving scene.…”

“…When drivers are required to regain control of the vehicle, their behaviour after the take-over request is also considered to be an indicator of the OOTL phenomenon. Differences between automated and manual driving, as observed in critical scenarios, indicate that automated driving leads to impaired visuomotor coordination during take-over (Mole et al, 2019). Navarro et al (2016) showed that gaze distribution was widely dispersed, resulting in difficulties in steering around unexpected obstacles.…”

Looking at the Road When Driving Around Bends: Influence of Vehicle Automation and Speed

“…However, an apparent increase in an ability to notice hazards (during automation as compared to manual control) does not seem to translate to an improved ability to safely respond to hazards: in Navarro et al (2016) drivers that were passively driven showed more LAFs (than manual control) but poorer driving performance when an unexpected obstacle needed to be avoided. It is clear that being out of the operational loop causes disruption to steering and gaze control that cannot be compensated for by simply making more LAFs to get anticipatory information (for a detailed discussion see Mole et al, 2019).…”

Driver-initiated Tesla Autopilot Disengagements in Naturalistic Driving

“…A growing body of research is concerned with the potential for detrimental effects of automation on driver behavior (e.g., lower awareness of the surrounding traffic [28]) and performance (e.g., lower quality of evasive maneuvers [22]). To date, most of the knowledge about driver behavior with advanced automation is based on simulator experiments [6,28,33] or relatively small scale on-road studies [1,9,10,42].…”

“…With assistive driving systems, such as AP, drivers are expected to maintain visual attention to events on the roadway and be ready to regain control of the vehicle. Otherwise, drivers may fail to promptly detect and respond to critical situations or system malfunctions [22,42]. A survey by Dikmen and Burns [7] reported that about 60% of participants experienced sporadic, erratic AP behavior (e.g., lane detection or road departure issues).…”