Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Driver assist system for human–machine interaction

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A haptic driver–vehicle steering interface is introduced that interacts with the driver through environmentally mediated torque and stiffness changes, thereby communicating the vehicle’s proximity to constraints in the driving environment. The system design is based on principles of distributed cognition, which are used to shape the force characteristics to provide the driver with a tangible, rich, distributed representation of the task constraints. This mapping of the task constraints aids the human operator in satisfying a variety of needs, including managing risk, maintaining contextual awareness and achieving a satisfactory level of performance. The proposed design philosophy was applied to implement a haptic steering system in a real-world test vehicle to assist drivers in navigating through an experimental course with tight passages. In tests conducted with 12 participants, not only did most drivers show improved performance, but activities identified as epistemic behaviors were also observed; in the context of driving, epistemic behaviors are actions through which a driver probes the environment to maintain contextual awareness for the purpose of actively maintaining a satisfactory balance between performance and risk. These findings indicate that the proposed system design allows humans to actively integrate the haptic interface system into their cognitive loops and that the resulting human–machine system achieves higher performance than the human alone. The observed human–machine system interaction is interpreted as achieving improved resilience against variations in environmentally imposed risks.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbink DA, Mulder M, der Helm FCTV, Mulder M, Boer ER (2011) Measuring neuromuscular control dynamics during car following with continuous haptic feedback. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 41(5):1239–1249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbink DA, Mulder M, Boer ER (2012) Haptic shared control: smoothly shifting control authority? Cogn. Technol. Work 14(1):19–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beall AC, Loomis JM (1996) Visual control of steering without course information. Perception 25(4):481–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boer ER, Hildreth EC, Goodrich MA (1998) A driver model of attention management and task scheduling: satisficing decision making with dynamic mental models. In: Proceedings 17th European annual conference on human decision making and control, p 98

  • Boer ER, Caro S, Cavallo V (2007) A cybernetic perspective on car following in fog. In: Proceedings of the fourth international driving symposium on human factors in driver assessment, training and vehicle design, pp 452–458

  • Cook R, Rasmussen J (2005) “Going solid”: a model of system dynamics and consequences for patient safety. Qual Saf Health Care 14(2):130–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donges E (1978) A two-level model of driver steering behavior. Hum Factors 20(6):691–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endsley MR (1995) Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors 37(1):32–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flemisch FO, Bengler K, Bubb H, Winner H, Bruder R (2014) Towards cooperative guidance and control of highly automated vehicles: H-mode and conduct-by-wire. Ergonomics 57(3):343–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson JJ, Crooks LE (1938) A theoretical field-analysis of automobile-driving. Am J Psychol 51(3):453–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godthelp H, Milgram P, Blaauw GJ (1984) The development of a time-related measure to describe driving strategy. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 26(3):257–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodrich MA, Boer ER (2000) Designing human centered automation: tradeoffs in collision avoidance system design. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 1(1):40–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodrich MA, Stirling WC, Boer ER (2000) Satisficing revisited. Minds Mach 10(1):79–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths PG, Gillespie RB (2005) Sharing control between humans and automation using haptic interface: primary and secondary task performance benefits. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 47(3):574–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegedüs F, Bécsi T, Aradi S, Gáspár P (2017) Model based trajectory planning for highly automated road vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 20th IFAC world congress, pp 7152–7158

  • Hirzinger G, Heindl J, Landzettel K, Brunner B (1992) Multisensory shared autonomy—a key issue in the space robot technology experiment rotex. In: Proceedings of the 1992 lEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, vol 1, pp 221–230

  • Hollan J, Hutchins E, Kirsh D (2000) Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human–computer interaction research. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 7(2):174–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (2006) Resilience: the challenge of the unstable. In: Hollnagel E, Woods D, Leveson N (eds) Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, pp 9–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hwang J, Huh K, Na H, Jung H, Kang H, Yoon P (2008) Evaluation of lane keeping assistance controllers in HIL simulation. In: Proceedings of the 17th IFAC world congress, vol 41, no 2, pp 9491–9496

  • Inagaki T (2003) Adaptive automation: design of authority for system safety. IFAC Control in Transportation System, Tokyo, pp 13–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Inagaki T (2006) Design of humanmachine interactions in light of domain-dependence of human-centered automation. Cogn Technol Work 8(3):161–167

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Inagaki T (2009) Human–machine collaboration for safety and comfort. In: ENRI international workshop on ATM/CNS, pp 127–130

  • Inagaki T (2011) To what extent may assistance systems correct and prevent erroneous behaviour of the driver? In: Cacciabue P, Hjalmdahl M, Luedtke A, Riccioli C (eds) Human modelling in assisted transportation: models, tools and risk methods. Springer, Milano, pp 33–41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Inagaki T, Itoh M (2013) Humans overtrust in and over reliance on advanced driver assistance systems: a theoretical framework. Int J Veh Technol 2013:1–8

  • Itoh M, Flemisch F, Abbink D (2016) A hierarchical framework to analyze shared control conflicts between human and machine. IFAC PapersOnLine 49(19):96–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iwano K, Raksincharoensak P, Nagai M (2014) A study on shared control between the driver and an active steering control system in emergency obstacle avoidance situations. In: Proceeding of the 19th IFAC world congress, vol 47, no 3, pp 6228–6343

  • Katzourakis DI, de Winter JC, Alirezaei M, Corno M, Happee R (2014) Road-departure prevention in an emergency obstacle avoidance situation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 44(5):621–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsh D (2006) Distributed cognition: a methodological note. Pragmat Cogn 14(2):249–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsh D, Maglio P (1994) On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cogn Sci 18(4):513–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kishida E, Uenuma K, Iwao K, Matsuzaki N, Shigemasu H, Kitazaki M, (2009) A study on a device for controlling visual information to improve driver performance. SAE Technical Paper 2009-01-0548

  • Kudo H, Horiguchi Y, Sawaragi T, Nakanishi H (2015) Train driver support interface based on visualization of running time constraints. Trans Soc Instrum Control Eng 51(3):171–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuge N, Yamamura T, Boer E, Ward N, Manser M (2006) Study on drivers car following abilities based on an active haptic support function. In: SAE Technical Paper, SAE International

  • Land M, Horwood J (1995) Which parts of the road guide steering? Nature 377:339–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land MF, Lee DN (1994) Where we look when we steer. Nature 369(6483):742–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leelavansuk P, Shitamitsu K, Mouri K, Nagai M (2002) Study on cooperative control of driver and lane-keeping assistance system. In: Proceeding of the international symposium on advanced vehicle, control, pp 219–224

  • Leelavansuk P, Yoshida H, Nagai M (2003) Cooperative steering characteristics of driver and lane-keeping assistance system. Int J ITS Res 1(1):17–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu JF, Wu JH, Su YH (2007) Development of an Interactive lane keeping control system for vehicle. In: IEEE vehicle power and propulsion conference, Arlington, TX, pp 702–706

  • MacAdam CC (2003) Understanding and modeling the human driver. Veh Syst Dyn 40(1–3):101–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maglio P, Wenger M, Copeland A (2003) The benefits of epistemic action outweigh the costs. In: Proceedings of the 25th annual cognitive science society, pp 752–757

  • Mouri H, Nagai M (2001) Study on automatic path tracking with steering torque input. Trans Jpn Soc Mech Eng C(66–664):3836–3843

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson J, Fredriksson J, Coelingh E (2017) Trajectory planning with miscellaneous safety critical zones. In: Proceedings of the 20th IFAC world congress, pp 9413–9418

  • NHTSA (2013) Preliminary statement of policy concerning automated vehicles. Tech. rep, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

  • Parasuraman R, Wickens CD (2008) Humans: still vital after all these years of automation. Hum Factors 50(3):511–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl J, Ekmark J (2003) A lane keeping assist system for passenger car-design aspects of the user interface. In: Proceedings of the 18th international technical conference on the enhanced safety of vehicles

  • Rasmussen J (1983) Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Tran Syst Man Cybern SMC 13(3):257–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen J (1997) Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem. Saf Sci 27:183–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAE (2014) J3016: taxonomy and definitions for terms related to on-road motor vehicle automated driving systems. Tech. rep, SAE International

  • Salvucci DD (2006) Modeling driver behavior in a cognitive architecture. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 48(2):362–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawaragi T (2008) Design theory for dynamical systems with semiosis. In: SICE annual conference, pp 375–380

  • Sawaragi T (2016) Human-system co-creative design of resilience. IFAC PapersOnLine 49(19):468–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimakage M, Satoh S, Uenuma K, Mouri H (2002) Design of lane-keeping control with steering torque input. JSAE Rev 23(3):317–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens SS (1957) On the psychophysical law. Psychol Rev 64(3):153–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi A, Hayashi K, Sasaki M (2003) Movement sequences for cracking an egg. In: Rogers S, Effken J (eds) Studies in perception and action VII, LEA, 10 Industrial Avenue, Mahwah, NJ, pp 165–169

  • Wada T, Doi S, Nishiyama A, Isaji K, Tsuru N, Kaneko H (2008) Analysis of braking behavior in car following and its application to driver assistance system. In: Proceeding of 9th international symposium on advanced vehicle control, pp 577–583

  • Woltjer R (2008) Resilience assessment based on models of functional resonance. In: Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on resilience engineering

  • Wood D (2006) Essential characteristics of resilience. In: Hollnagel E, Woods D, Leveson N (eds) Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 21–33 (chap 2)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nissan Research Center Silicon Valley, Nissan North America, Inc., 1215 Bordeaux Drive, Sunnyvale, CA, 94089, USA

    Yuji Takada

  2. Entropy Control, Inc., 7945 Avenida Kirjah, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA

    Erwin R. Boer

  3. Department of Mechanical Engineering and Science, Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University, Kyoto daigaku-Katsura, Nishikyo-ku, Kyoto, 615-8530, Japan

    Tetsuo Sawaragi

Authors
  1. Yuji Takada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erwin R. Boer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tetsuo Sawaragi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuji Takada.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Takada, Y., Boer, E.R. & Sawaragi, T. Driver assist system for human–machine interaction. Cogn Tech Work 19, 819–836 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-017-0439-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-017-0439-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation