Sarah Faltaous
Stefan Schneegass
Lewis L. Chuang
ABSTRACT
Currently offered autonomous vehicles still require the human intervention. For instance, when the system fails to perform as expected or adapts to unanticipated situations. Given that reliability of autonomous systems can fluctuate across conditions, this work is a first step towards understanding how this information ought to be communicated to users. We conducted a user study to investigate the effect of communicating the system's reliability through a feedback bar. Subjective feedback was solicited from participants with questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Based on the qualitative results, we derived guidelines that serve as a foundation for the design of how autonomous systems could provide continuous feedback on their reliability.
- Jonathan Allsop, Rob Gray, Heinrich Bülthoff, and Lewis Chuang. 2017. Eye movement planning on Single-Sensor-Single-Indicator displays is vulnerable to user anxiety and cognitive load. Journal of Eye Movement Research 10, 5 (2017).Google Scholar
- Matthias Althoff. 2010. Reachability analysis and its application to the safety assessment of autonomous cars. Ph.D. Dissertation. Technische Universität München.Google Scholar
- J Elin Bahner, Anke-Dorothea Hüper, and Dietrich Manzey. 2008. Misuse of automated decision aids: Complacency, automation bias and the impact of training experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 66, 9 (2008), 688--699. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P Bazilinskyy, SM Petermeijer, V Petrovych, D Dodou, and JCF De Winter. 2018. Take-over requests in highly automated driving: A crowdsourcing survey on auditory, vibrotactile, and visual displays. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 56 (2018), 82--98.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Johannes Beller, Matthias Heesen, and Mark Vollrath. 2013. Improving the driver--automation interaction an approach using automation uncertainty. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (2013), 0018720813482327.Google Scholar
- Myra Blanco, Jon Atwood, Holland M. Vasquez, Tammy E. Trimble, Vikki L. Fitchett, Joshua Radlbeck, Gregory M. Fitch, Sheldon M. Russell, Charles A. Green, Brian Cullinane, and Justin F. Morgan. 2015. Human Factors Evaluation of Level 2 and Level 3 Automated Driving Concepts. (Report No. DOT HS 812 182) August (2015), 300.Google Scholar
- James P Bliss, Richard D Gilson, and John E Deaton. 1995. Human probability matching behaviour in response to alarms of varying reliability. Ergonomics 38, 11 (1995), 2300--2312.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shadan Sadeghian Borojeni, Lewis Chuang, Wilko Heuten, and Susanne Boll. 2016. Assisting drivers with ambient takeover requests in highly automated driving. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, 237--244. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sebastian Brechtel, Tobias Gindele, and Rüdiger Dillmann. 2014. Probabilistic decision-making under uncertainty for autonomous driving using continuous POMDPs. In Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2014 IEEE 17th International Conference on. IEEE, 392--399.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jennifer L Burke, Matthew S Prewett, Ashley A Gray, Liuquin Yang, Frederick RB Stilson, Michael D Coovert, Linda R Elliot, and Elizabeth Redden. 2006. Comparing the effects of visual-auditory and visual-tactile feedback on user performance: a meta-analysis. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Multimodal interfaces. ACM, 108--117. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andrew R Conway, Michael J Kane, Michael F Bunting, D. Zach Hambrick, Oliver Wilhelm, and Randall W. Engle. 2005. Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user ' s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12, 5 (2005), 769--786.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stephen R Dixon and Christopher D Wickens. 2006. Automation reliability in unmanned aerial vehicle control: A reliance-compliance model of automation dependence in high workload. Human Factors 48, 3 (2006), 474--486.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mary T Dzindolet, Hall P Beck, and Linda G Pierce. 2000. Encouraging human operators to appropriately rely on automated decision aids. Technical Report. ARMY RESEARCH LAB FORT SILL OK HUMAN RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING DIR.Google Scholar
- Mary T Dzindolet, Scott A Peterson, Regina A Pomranky, Linda G Pierce, and Hall P Beck. 2003. The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 58, 6 (2003), 697--718. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christian Gold, Ilirjan Berisha, and Klaus Bengler. 2015. Utilization of drivetime--performing nondriving related tasks while driving highly automated. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 59. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 1666--1670.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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, Vol. 57. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 1938--1942.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christian Gold, Moritz Körber, David Lechner, and Klaus Bengler. 2016. Taking over control from highly automated vehicles in complex traffic situations: the role of traffic density. Human factors 58, 4 (2016), 642--652.Google Scholar
- Robert L Goldstone and Andrew T Hendrickson. 2010. Categorical perception. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1, 1 (2010), 69--78.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Miriam Greis, Emre Avci, Albrecht Schmidt, and Tonja Machulla. 2017. Increasing Users' Confidence in Uncertain Data by Aggregating Data from Multiple Sources. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 828--840. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Miriam Greis, Aditi Joshi, Ken Singer, Albrecht Schmidt, and Tonja Machulla. 2018. Uncertainty Visualization Influences how Humans Aggregate Discrepant Information. In Proceedings ofthe 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 505. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tove Helldin, Göran Falkman, Maria Riveiro, and Staffan Davidsson. 2013. Presenting system uncertainty in automotive UIs for supporting trust calibration in autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, 210--217. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kevin Anthony Hoff and Masooda Bashir. 2015. Trust in automation integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 57, 3 (2015), 407--434.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrew L Kun, Susanne Boll, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2016. Shifting gears: User interfaces in the age of autonomous driving. IEEE Pervasive Computing 15, 1 (2016), 32--38. Google ScholarDigital Library
- David R Large, Gary Burnett, Andrew Morris, Arun Muthumani, and Rebecca Matthias. 2017. A longitudinal simulator study to explore drivers' behaviour during highly-automated driving. In International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Springer, 583--594.Google Scholar
- John D Lee and Katrina A See. 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46, 1 (2004), 50--80.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yung-Ching Liu. 2001. Comparative study of the effects of auditory, visual and multimodality displays on drivers' performance in advanced traveller information systems. Ergonomics 44, 4 (2001), 425--442.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Masha Maltz and David Shinar. 2007. Imperfect in-vehicle collision avoidance warning systems can aid distracted drivers. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 10, 4 (2007), 345--357.Google Scholar
- Neville Moray and T Inagaki. 1999. Laboratory studies of trust between humans and machines in automated systems. Transactions ofthe Institute of Measurement and Control 21, 4-5 (1999), 203--211.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Donald A Norman. 1990. The'problem'with automation: inappropriate feedback and interaction, not'over-automation'. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 327, 1241 (1990), 585--593.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Raja Parasuraman and Christopher A Miller. 2004. Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems. Commun. ACM 47, 4 (2004), 51--55. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Raja Parasuraman, Robert Molloy, and Indramani L Singh. 1993. Performance consequences of automation-induced'complacency'. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 3, 1 (1993), 1--23.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Raja Parasuraman, Thomas B Sheridan, and Christopher D Wickens. 2008. Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: Viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 2, 2 (2008), 140--160.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Raja Parasuraman and Christopher D Wickens. 2008. Humans: Still vital after all these years of automation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50, 3 (2008), 511--520.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sebastiaan Petermeijer, Fabian Doubek, and Joost de Winter. 2017. Driver response times to auditory, visual, and tactile takeover requests: A simulator study with 101 participants. In Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2017 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1505--1510.Google Scholar
- Nadine B Sarter, David D Woods, and Charles E Billings. 1997. Automation surprises. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics 2 (1997), 1926--1943.Google Scholar
- Kristin E Schaefer, Jessie YC Chen, James L Szalma, and Peter A Hancock. 2016. A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation: Implications for understanding autonomy in future systems. Human factors 58, 3 (2016), 377--400.Google Scholar
- Albrecht Schmidt and Thomas Herrmann. 2017. Intervention User Interfaces: A New Interaction Paradigm for Automated Systems. interactions 24, 5 (Aug. 2017), 40--45. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Society of Automotive Engineers. 2014. Automated driving levels of driving automation are defined in new SAE international standard J3016. (January 2014). {Online}.Google Scholar
- Robert D Sorkin, Barry H Kantowitz, and Susan C Kantowitz. 1988. Likelihood alarm displays. Human Factors 30, 4 (1988), 445--459. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Richard I Thackray and R MARK TOUCHSTONE. 1989. Effects of high visual taskload on the behaviours involved in complex monitoring. Ergonomics 32, 1 (1989), 27--38.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Guy H Walker, Neville A Stanton, and Paul Salmon. 2016. Trust in vehicle technology. International journal of vehicle design 70, 2 (2016), 157--182.Google Scholar
- Christopher D Wickens, Benjamin A Clegg, Alex Z Vieane, and Angelia L Sebok. 2015. Complacency and automation bias in the use of imperfect automation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (2015), 0018720815581940.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Design Guidelines for Reliability Communication in Autonomous Vehicles
Recommendations
Motion planning of autonomous vehicles in a non-autonomous vehicle environment without speed lanes
Planning is one of the key problems for autonomous vehicles operating in road scenarios. Present planning algorithms operate with the assumption that traffic is organised in predefined speed lanes, which makes it impossible to allow autonomous vehicles ...
Toward Measurement of Situation Awareness in Autonomous Vehicles
CHI '17: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsUntil vehicles are fully autonomous, safety, legal and ethical obligations require that drivers remain aware of the driving situation. Key decisions about whether a driver can take over when the vehicle is confused, or its capabilities are degraded, ...
Increasing Pedestrian Safety Using External Communication of Autonomous Vehicles for Signalling Hazards
MobileHCI '21: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer InteractionPedestrians are very vulnerable road users. Autonomous vehicles driving on the street are expected to reduce the risks for pedestrians. However, traffic will include manually driven vehicles for the next decades; therefore, the risk remains and can ...
Comments