skip to main content
10.1145/3126594.3126655acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesuistConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Reinventing the Wheel: Transforming Steering Wheel Systems for Autonomous Vehicles

Published:20 October 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we introduce two different transforming steering wheel systems that can be utilized to augment user experience for future partially autonomous and fully autonomous vehicles. The first one is a robotic steering wheel that can mechanically transform by using its actuators to move the various components into different positions. The second system is a LED steering wheel that can visually transform by using LEDs embedded along the rim of wheel to change colors. Both steering wheel systems contain onboard microcontrollers developed to interface with our driving simulator. The main function of these two systems is to provide emergency warnings to drivers in a variety of safety critical scenarios, although the design space that we propose for these steering wheel systems also includes the use as interactive user interfaces. To evaluate the effectiveness of the emergency alerts, we conducted a driving simulator study examining the performance of participants (N=56) after an abrupt loss of autonomous vehicle control. Drivers who experienced the robotic steering wheel performed significantly better than those who experienced the LED steering wheel. The results of this study suggest that alerts utilizing mechanical movement are more effective than purely visual warnings.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p229-mok.mp4

mp4

261.2 MB

References

  1. David A. Abbink, Mark Mulder, and Erwin R. Boer. 2012. Haptic shared control: smoothly shifting control authority? Cognition, Technology & Work 14, 1: 19-- 28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Dillis V. Allen. 1994. Steering wheel assembly with communication keyboard. Google Patents. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/patents/US5319803Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Avinash Balachandran and J. Christian Gerdes. 2015. Designing Steering Feel for Steer-by-Wire Vehicles Using Objective Measures. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 20, 1: 373--383.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Frank Beruscha, Klaus Augsburg, and Dietrich Manstetten. 2011. Haptic warning signals at the steering wheel: A literature survey regarding lane departure warning systems. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle /1773/34898Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Arie P. van den Beukel and Mascha C. van der Voort. 2013. The influence of time-criticality on Situation Awareness when retrieving human control after automated driving. In 16th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC 2013), 2000--2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. BMW Group. The Next 100 Years - Brand Visions. Retrieved from https://www.bmwgroup.com/en/next100/brandvisions. htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Avinoam Borowsky and Tal Oron-Gilad. 2016. The effects of automation failure and secondary task on drivers' ability to mitigate hazards in highly or semiautomated vehicles. Advances in Transportation Studies, 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Karel A. Brookhuis and Dick de Waard. 2010. Monitoring drivers' mental workload in driving simulators using physiological measures. Accident Analysis & Prevention 42, 3: 898--903.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Marcelo Coelho, Hiroshi Ishii, and Pattie Maes. 2008. Surflex: a programmable surface for the design of tangible interfaces. In CHI'08 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, 3429--3434. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1358869 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Marcelo Coelho and Jamie Zigelbaum. 2011. Shapechanging interfaces. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 15, 2: 161--173. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Daniel Damböck and Klaus Bengler. Übernahmezeiten beim hochautomatisierten Fahren. Retrieved from http://www.ftm.mw.tum.de/uploads/media/24_Dambo eck.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Tanja Döring, Dagmar Kern, Paul Marshall, Max Pfeiffer, Johannes Schöning, Volker Gruhn, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2011. Gestural Interaction on the Steering Wheel: Reducing the Visual Demand. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '11), 483--492. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. H. O. Duncan. 1927. The world on wheels, by H. O. Duncan.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Enes Selman Ege, Furkan Cetin, and Cagatay Basdogan. 2011. Vibrotactile feedback in steering wheel reduces navigation errors during GPS-guided car driving. In World Haptics Conference (WHC), 2011 IEEE, 345--348. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5945510/Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Gregory M. Fitch, Jonathan M. Hankey, Brian M. Kleiner, and Thomas A. Dingus. 2011. Driver comprehension of multiple haptic seat alerts intended for use in an integrated collision avoidance system. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 14, 4: 278--290.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Sean Follmer, Daniel Leithinger, Alex Olwal, Nadia Cheng, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2012. Jamming user interfaces: programmable particle stiffness and sensing for malleable and shape-changing devices. In Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, 519--528. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2380181 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Sean Follmer, Daniel Leithinger, Alex Olwal, Akimitsu Hogge, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2013. inFORM: dynamic physical affordances and constraints through shape and object actuation. In Uist, 417--426. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2501988.2502032 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Terrence Fong and Charles Thorpe. 2001. Vehicle Teleoperation Interfaces. Autonomous Robots 11, 1: 9-- 18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Terrence W. Fong, Francois Conti, Sébastien Grange, and Charles Baur. 2001. Novel interfaces for remote driving: gesture, haptic, and PDA. In Intelligent Systems and Smart Manufacturing, 300--311. http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/data/Conferen ces/SPIEP/39298/300_1.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Christian Gold, Daniel Damböck, Lutz Lorenz, and Klaus Bengler. 2013. "Take over!" How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop? In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 1938--1942. http://pro.sagepub.com/content/57/1/1938.shortGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Sungjae Hwang and Jung-hee Ryu. 2010. The Haptic steering Wheel: Vibro-tactile based navigation for the driving environment. In Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PERCOM Workshops), 2010 8th IEEE International Conference on, 660--665. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5470517/Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn, Huib de Ridder, Jonathan Freeman, and Steve E. Avons. 2000. Presence: concept, determinants, and measurement. 520--529.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. International Organization for Standards. ISO 22324:2015(en), Societal security -- Emergency management -- Guidelines for colour-coded alerts. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:50061:enGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Toshio Ito, Arata Takata, and Kenta Oosawa. 2016. Time Required for Take-over from Automated to Manual Driving.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Dagmar Kern, Paul Marshall, Eva Hornecker, Yvonne Rogers, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2009. Enhancing navigation information with tactile output embedded into the steering wheel. Pervasive Computing: 42--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Miltos Kyriakidis, Joost C. F. de Winter, Neville Stanton, Thierry Bellet, Bart van Arem, Karel Brookhuis, Marieke Martens, Klaus Bengler, Jan Andersson, Natasha Merat, Nick Reed, Matt Flament, Marjan Hagenzieker, and Riender Happee. 2017. A human factors perspective on automated driving. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science: 1--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. John E. Lahiff. 1997. Vehicle information display on steering wheel surface. Google Patents. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/patents/US5691695Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. David Lakatos and Hiroshi Ishii. 2012. Towards Radical Atoms-Form-giving to transformable materials. In Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom), 2012 IEEE 3rd International Conference on, 37--40. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6422023/Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Tin Lun Lam, Huihuan Qian, and Yangsheng Xu. 2010. Omnidirectional Steering Interface and Control for a Four-Wheel Independent Steering Vehicle. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics 15, 3: 329--338.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Vivien Melcher, Stefan Rauh, Frederik Diederichs, Harald Widlroither, and Wilhelm Bauer. 2015. TakeOver Requests for Automated Driving. Procedia Manufacturing 3: 2867--2873.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Mercedes-Benz USA. The Mercedes-Benz F 015 Luxury in Motion. Retrieved July 16, 2017 from https://www.mbusa.com/vcm/MB/DigitalAssets/AboutUs/PressReleases/F_015_Luxury_in_Motion_enus.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Georg Michelitsch, Jason Williams, Martin Osen, Beatriz Jimenez, and Stefan Rapp. 2004. Haptic chameleon: a new concept of shape-changing user interface controls with force feedback. In CHI'04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, 1305--1308. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=986050 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. David Miller, Annabel Sun, Mishel Johns, Hillary Page Ive, David Sirkin, Sudipto Aich, and Wendy Ju. 2015. Distraction Becomes Engagement in Automated Driving. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, October 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Brian Mok, Mishel Johns, Key Jung Lee, Hillary Page Ive, David Miller, and Wendy Ju. 2015. Timing of unstructured transitions of control in automated driving. In 2015 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 1167--1172.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Brian Mok, Mishel Johns, Key Jung Lee, David Miller, David Sirkin, Page Ive, and Wendy Ju. 2015. Emergency, Automation Off: Unstructured Transition Timing for Distracted Drivers of Automated Vehicles. In Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on, 2458--2464. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=7 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Brian Mok, Mishel Johns, David Miller, and Wendy Ju. 2017. Tunneled In: Drivers with Active Secondary Tasks Need More Time to Transition from Automation. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2840--2844. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3025713 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Brian Mok, Mishel Johns, Stephen Yang, and Wendy Ju. 2017. Actions Speak Louder: Effects of a Transforming Steering Wheel on Post-Transition Driver Performance. In IEEE 20th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. MOTOR1. Audi James 2025 virtual cockpit of the future. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBiVk31rvjAGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Mark Mulder, David A. Abbink, and Erwin R. Boer. 2008. The effect of haptic guidance on curve negotiation behavior of young, experienced drivers. In Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2008. SMC 2008. IEEE International Conference on, 804--809. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4811377/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Yoshitoshi Murata and Kazuhiro Yoshida. Automobile Driving Interface Using Gesture Operations for Disabled People. Retrieved April 4, 2017 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1 .1.679.2206Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Nissan USA. Nissan IDS Concept: Nissan's vision for the future of EVs and autonomous driving. Nissan Online Newsroom. Retrieved July 16, 2017 from http://nissannews.com/enUS/nissan/usa/releases/nissan-ids-concept-nissan-svision-for-the-future-of-evs-and-autonomous-drivingGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. S. M. Petermeijer, S. Cieler, and J. C. F. de Winter. 2017. Comparing spatially static and dynamic vibrotactile take-over requests in the driver seat. Accident Analysis & Prevention 99, Part A: 218--227.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Bastian Pfleging, Stefan Schneegass, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2012. Multimodal Interaction in the Car: Combining Speech and Gestures on the Steering Wheel. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI '12), 155--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Christopher J. Ploch, Jung Hwa Bae, Wendy Ju, and Mark Cutkosky. 2016. Haptic skin stretch on a steering wheel for displaying preview information in autonomous cars. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, 60--65. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7759035/Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Jonas Radlmayr, Christian Gold, Lutz Lorenz, Mehdi Farid, and Klaus Bengler. 2014. 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, 2063--2067. http://pro.sagepub.com/content/58/1/2063.shortGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Majken K. Rasmussen, Esben W. Pedersen, Marianne G. Petersen, and Kasper Hornbaek. 2012. Shapechanging Interfaces: A Review of the Design Space and Open Research Questions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12), 735--744. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. SAE International. Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for OnRoad Motor Vehicles. SAE International. Retrieved January 21, 2017 from http://standards.sae.org/j3016_201609/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. SAE International. J2944: Operational Definitions of Driving Performance Measures and Statistics - SAE International. Retrieved from http://standards.sae.org/j2944_201506/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Gözel Shakeri, Alexander Ng, John H. Williamson, and Stephen A. Brewster. 2016. Evaluation of Haptic Patterns on a Steering Wheel. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Automotive'UI 16), 129--136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. David Sirkin and Wendy Ju. 2012. Consistency in physical and on-screen action improves perceptions of telepresence robots. In Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 57--64. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2157699 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Micah Steele and R. Brent Gillespie. 2001. Shared control between human and machine: Using a haptic steering wheel to aid in land vehicle guidance. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, 1671--1675.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Joris C Verster and Thomas Roth. 2011. Standard operation procedures for conducting the on-the-road driving test, and measurement of the standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP). International Journal of General Medicine 4: 359--371.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Volvo Cars. Volvo Concept 26 | Intillisafe | Volvo Cars. Retrieved from http://www.volvocars.com/intl/about/our-innovationbrands/intellisafe/autonomous-driving/c26Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Volvo Cars. Volvo Cars conducts research into driver sensors in order to create cars that get to know their drivers. Retrieved from https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/engb/media/pressreleases/140898/volvo-cars-conductsresearch-into-driver-sensors-in-order-to-create-carsthat-get-to-know-their-drivGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. David Wilfinger, Martin Murer, Sebastian Osswald, Alexander Meschtscherjakov, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2013. The Wheels Are Turning: Content Rotation on Steering Wheel Displays. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13), 1809--1812. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Yanfeng Automotive Interiors. XiM17: "the next living space" interior autonomous concept car debuts at NAIAS 2017. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56Ow8cw1m6oGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Lining Yao, Ryuma Niiyama, Jifei Ou, Sean Follmer, Clark Della Silva, and Hiroshi Ishii. 2013. PneUI: pneumatically actuated soft composite materials for shape changing interfaces. In Proceedings of the 26th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and Technology, 13--22. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2502037 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Kathrin Zeeb, Axel Buchner, and Michael Schrauf. 2015. What determines the take-over time? An integrated model approach of driver take-over after automated driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention 78: 212--221.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Reinventing the Wheel: Transforming Steering Wheel Systems for Autonomous Vehicles

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      UIST '17: Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology
      October 2017
      870 pages
      ISBN:9781450349819
      DOI:10.1145/3126594

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 20 October 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      UIST '17 Paper Acceptance Rate73of324submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate842of3,967submissions,21%

      Upcoming Conference

      UIST '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader