Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

How to Determine the Time-Intervals of Two-Stage Warning Systems in Different Traffic Densities? An Investigation on the Takeover Process in Automated Driving

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics (HCII 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 14018))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1354 Accesses

Abstract

In level 3 automated driving, the warning systems played a critical role in reminding drivers who were engaging in non-driving-related tasks to take over the vehicle when the automated driving system met difficulties that exceed its capacity. The two-stage warning systems, which provided a time-interval between the first and the second warnings, compensated for deficiencies of the single-stage warning systems in inadequate motor preparation and situation awareness. However, the effectiveness of different lengths of time-intervals in different traffic densities remains unclear. The present study conducted an experiment to investigate different time-intervals (3 s, 5 s, 7 s, and 9 s) and traffic density levels (low: 0 vehicle /km and high: 20 vehicles/ km) on the drivers’ motor readiness, situation awareness, takeover performance, and subjective ratings. Results suggested that 5 s and 7 s (compared with 3 s and 9 s) were two favored time-intervals in general but the drivers’ response patterns and the beneficial aspects of time-intervals varied for driving environments with different traffic density levels. The findings of the present study had implications for the design and application of the two-stage warning systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Zhang, B., et al.: Determinants of take-over time from automated driving: a meta-analysis of 129 studies. Transport. Res. F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 64, 285–307 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. SAE International. Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. (J3016_202104), 30 April 2021. https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_202104

  3. McDonald, A.D., et al.: Toward computational simulations of behavior during automated driving takeovers: a review of the empirical and modeling literatures. Hum. Factors 61(4), 642–688 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ma, S., et al.: Take over gradually in conditional automated driving: the effect of two-stage warning systems on situation awareness, driving stress, takeover performance, and acceptance. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 37(4), 352–362 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhang, W., et al.: Optimal time intervals in two-stage takeover warning systems with insight into the drivers’ neuroticism personality. Front. Psychol. 12, 601536 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Werneke, J., Kleen, A., Vollrath, M.: Perfect timing: urgency, not driving situations, influence the best timing to activate warnings. Hum. Factors 56(2), 249–259 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Winkler, S., Werneke, J., Vollrath, M.: Timing of early warning stages in a multi stage collision warning system: Drivers’ evaluation depending on situational influences. Transport. Res. F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 36, 57–68 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang, R., et al.: Implementation of driving safety early warning system based on trajectory prediction on the internet of vehicles environment. Secur. Commun. Netw. (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rousseau, G.K., Lamson, N., Rogers, W.A.: Designing warnings to compensate for age-related changes in perceptual and cognitive abilities. Psychol. Mark. 15(7), 643–662 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wogalter, M.S., Leonard, S.D.: Attention capture and maintenance. Warn. Risk Commun., 123–148 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Li, S., et al.: Investigation of older driver’s takeover performance in highly automated vehicles in adverse weather conditions. IET Intel. Transp. Syst. 12(9), 1157–1165 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Louw, T., et al.: Coming back into the loop: Drivers’ perceptual-motor performance in critical events after automated driving. Accid. Anal. Prev. 108, 9–18 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Du, N., et al.: Evaluating effects of cognitive load, takeover request lead time, and traffic density on drivers’ takeover performance in conditionally automated driving. In: 12th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, pp. 66–73, ACM, New York (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gold, C., et al.: Taking over control from highly automated vehicles in complex traffic situations: The role of traffic density. Hum. Factors 58(4), 642–652 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Körber, M., et al.: The influence of age on the take-over of vehicle control in highly automated driving. Transport. Res. F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 39, 19–32 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Radlmayr, J., et al.: How traffic situations and non-driving related tasks affect the take-over quality in highly automated driving. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, pp. 2063–2067. Sage Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  17. So, J.J., et al.: Investigating the impacts of road traffic conditions and driver’s characteristics on automated vehicle takeover time and quality using a driving simulator. J. Adv. Transp. 2021, 1–13 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Doubek, F., et al.: Takeover quality: assessing the effects of time budget and traffic density with the help of a trajectory-planning method. J. Adv. Transp. 2020, 1–12 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hergeth, S., Lorenz, L., Krems, J.F.: Prior familiarization with takeover requests affects drivers’ takeover performance and automation trust. Hum. Factors 59(3), 457–470 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nguyen, T., et al.: A review of situation awareness assessment approaches in aviation environments. IEEE Syst. J. 13(3), 3590–3603 (2019)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Selcon, S.J., Taylor, R.M., Koritsas, E.: Workload or situational awareness?: TLX vs. SART for aerospace systems design evaluation. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, pp. 62–66. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Heller, O., Theorie und Praxis des Verfahrens der Kategorienunterteilung (KU): Forschungsbericht. Würzburg: Psychologisches Institut, Lehrstuhl für Allgemeine Psychologie, 1–15 (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bazilinskyy, P., de Winter, J.: Auditory interfaces in automated driving: an international survey. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 1, e13 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Petermeijer, S., Doubek, F., De Winter, J.: Driver response times to auditory, visual, and tactile take-over requests: a simulator study with 101 participants. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), pp. 1505–1510. IEEE, Banff (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Baayen, R.H., Davidson, D.J., Bates, D.M.: Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. J. Mem. Lang. 59(4), 390–412 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Breslow, N.E., Clayton, D.G.: Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 88(421), 9–25 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wan, Y., Sarter, N.: Attention limitations in the detection and identification of alarms in close temporal proximity. Hum. Factors, 00187208211063991 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Friedman, M.: The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 32(200), 675–701 (1937)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wilcoxon, F.: Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods. Springer, New York (1992)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Kahneman, D.: Attention and Effort. PRENTICE-HALL INC, Englewood Cliffs (1973)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Endsley, M.R.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. In: Salas, E. (ed.) Situational awareness, Routledge, London, pp. 9–42 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wright, T.J., et al.: Experienced drivers are quicker to achieve situation awareness than inexperienced drivers in situations of transfer of control within a Level 3 autonomous environment. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, pp. 270–273. Sage Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Endsley, M.R., et al.: A comparative analysis of SAGAT and SART for evaluations of situation awareness. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, pp. 82–86. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (1998)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

    Wei Zhang & Changxu Wu

  2. Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, China

    Shu Ma & Zhen Yang

  3. Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China

    Hongting Li

  4. Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

    Jinlei Shi

Authors
  1. Wei Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shu Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhen Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Changxu Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hongting Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jinlei Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shu Ma .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Coventry University, Coventry, UK

    Don Harris

  2. Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK

    Wen-Chin Li

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Zhang, W., Ma, S., Yang, Z., Wu, C., Li, H., Shi, J. (2023). How to Determine the Time-Intervals of Two-Stage Warning Systems in Different Traffic Densities? An Investigation on the Takeover Process in Automated Driving. In: Harris, D., Li, WC. (eds) Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. HCII 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 14018. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35389-5_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35389-5_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-35388-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-35389-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics