Simulator Training With a Forward Collision Warning System

Abstract

Objective: The study addressed the role of familiarization on a driving simulator with a forward collision warning (FCW) and investigated its impact on driver behavior. Background: Drivers need a good understanding of how an FCW system functions to trust it and use it properly. Theoretical and empirical data suggest that exploring the capacities and limitations of the FCW during the learning period improves operating knowledge and leads to increased driver trust in the system and better driver-system interactions. The authors tested this hypothesis by comparing groups of drivers differing in FCW familiarity. Method: During the familiarization phase, familiarized drivers were trained on the simulator using the FCW, unfamiliarized drivers simply read an FCW manual, and control drivers had no contact with the FCW. During the test, drivers drove the simulator and had to interact with traffic; both familiarized and unfamiliarized drivers used the FCW, whereas controls did not. Results: Simulator familiarization improved driver understanding of FCW operation. Driver-system interactions were more effective: Familiarized drivers had no collisions, longer time headways, and better reactions in most situations. Familiarization increased trust in the FCW but did not raise system acceptance. Conclusion: Familiarization on the simulator had a positive effect on driver-system interactions and on trust in the system. The limitations of the familiarization method are discussed in relation to the driving simulator methodology. Application: Practicing on a driving simulator with driving-assistance systems could facilitate their use during real driving.

Calibrating Trust in Automation Through Familiarity With the Autoparking Feature of a Tesla Model X

“…Research has shown that as expertise increases, there may be a direct increase in trust (Merritt, Lee, Unnerstall, & Huber, 2015; Rajaonah, Anceaux, & Vienne, 2006; Schaefer, Chen, Szalma, & Hancock, 2016). Similar results for familiarity affecting trust have been found with collision warning systems (Koustanaï, Cavallo, Delhomme, & Mas, 2012) and takeover performance (Hergeth, Lorenz, & Krems, 2017). Additional work has suggested that trust calibration can be enhanced through presentation of trust cues (de Visser, Cohen, Freedy, & Parasuraman, 2014), decision aids (McGuirl & Sarter, 2006), greater transparency (Yang, Unhelkar, Li, & Shah, 2017), causal attributions of automation failures (Pop, Shrewsbury, & Durso, 2015), and system uncertainty (Helldin, Falkman, Riveiro, & Davidsson, 2013).…”

Car-to-cyclist forward collision warning effectiveness evaluation: a parametric analysis on reconstructed real accident cases

“…They found that the more drivers were exposed to FCW, the faster they can react to the signal. This is also confirmed by Koustanaï et al (2012) where the FCW was more effective with familiarized drivers compared to unfamiliarized. Variations of driver reaction considering above parameters are considered in this paper by including a large range of driver reaction time (from 0.6 to 1.2s) but are not varied depending on driver's characteristics in our samples.…”

“…It appeared that the more exposed were drivers to FCW, the faster they reacted to the signal. Koustanaï et al (2012) determined FCW effects on drivers. They showed that drivers' interaction with FCW system were more effective when drivers were familiarised with the system compared to unfamiliarised drivers.…”

A Meta-Analysis of Factors Influencing the Development of Trust in Automation

“…Alarms for collision warning systems should also be reliable (Bliss & Acton, 2003). Koustanai, Cavallo, Dalhomme, & Mas (2012) suggest that individuals familiar with how the collision warning system functions tend to trust the system more than those who were unfamiliar with the system. Research into perceptual aids suggests that there was no significant difference in trust for varying levels of automation in a fault management system (Lorenz, De Nocera, Rottger, & Parasuraman, 2002).…”