Lewis L. Chuang
Stella F. Donker
Andrew L. Kun
Christian P. Janssen
ABSTRACT
This workshop discusses the balance between safety and productivity as automated vehicles turn into 'mobile offices': spaces where non-driving activities are performed during one's daily commute. Technological developments reduce the active role of the human driver that might, nonetheless, require occasional intervention. To what extent are drivers allowed to dedicate resources to non-driving work-related activities? To address this critical question, the workshop brings together a diverse community of researchers and practitioners that are interested in questions as follows: what non-driving activities are likely to be performed on one's way to work and back; what is a useful taxonomy of these tasks; how can various tasks be studied in experimental settings; and, what are the criteria to assess human performance in automated vehicles. To foster further dialogue, the outcome of the workshop will be an online blog where attendees can contribute their own thoughts: https://medium.com/the-mobile-office.
- Paul Atchley, & Mark Chan. 2011. Potential Benefits and Costs of Concurrent Task Engagement to Maintain Vigilance: A Driving Simulator Investigation. Human Factors, 53(1), 3--12.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Chuang, L. L., Glatz, C., & Krupenia, S. 2017. Using EEG to understand why behavior to auditory in-vehicle notifications differs across test environments. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 123--133. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thomas A. Dingus, Feng Guo, Suzie Lee, Jonathan F. Antin, Miguel Perez, Mindy Buchanan-King, & Jonathan Hankey. 2016. Driver crash risk factors and prevalence evaluation using naturalistic driving data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201513271.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Anna Feldhütter, Christian Gold, Sonja Schneider, & Klaus Bengler. 2017. How the duration of automated driving influences take-over performance and gaze behavior, Advances in Ergonomic Design of Systems, Products and Processes. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017. 309--318.Google Scholar
- Tom M. Gasser & Daniel Westhof. 2012. BASt-study: Definitions of Automation and Legal Issues in Germany (Tech. Rep.). Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt).Google Scholar
- Glatz, C., Krupenia, S. S., Bülthoff, H. H., & Chuang, L. L. (2018, April). Use the Right Sound for the Right Job: Verbal Commands and Auditory Icons for a Task-Management System Favor Different Information Processes in the Brain. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 472, 1--13. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christian P. Janssen, Linda Ng Boyle, Andrew L. Kun, Wendy Ju, & Lewis Chuang. accepted 2018. A Hidden Markov Framework to Capture Human-Machine Interaction in Automated Vehicles. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction.Google Scholar
- Christian P. Janssen, Sandy J. Gould, Simon Y.W. Li, Duncan P. Brumby, & Anna L. Cox. 2015. Integrating knowledge of multitasking and Interruptions across different Perspectives and research methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 79, 1--5. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christian P. Janssen, Shamsi T. Iqbal, Andrew L. Kun, Stella F. Donker. Submitted. Interrupted by my car? Implications of interruption and interleaving research for automated vehicles. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
- Sheila G. Klauer, Feng Guo, Bruce G. Simons-Morton, Marie C. Ouimet, Suzanne E. Lee, & Thomas A. Dingus. 2014. Distracted Driving and Risk of Road Crashes among Novice and Experienced Drivers. New England Journal of Medicine, 370(1), 54--59.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrew L. Kun, Susanne Boll, & Albrecht Schmidt. 2016. Shifting gears: User interfaces in the age of autonomous driving. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 15(1), 32--38. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Natasha Merat, A. Hamish Jamson, Frank C. H. Lai, & Oliver Carsten, (2012). Highly automated driving, secondary task performance, and driver state. Human Factors, 54(5), 762--771.Google ScholarCross Ref
- SAE International. 2014. J3016: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to On-Road Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems.Google Scholar
- Shadan Sadeghian Borojeni, Lewis L. Chuang, Wilko Heuten, & Susanne C.J. Boll (2016) Assisting drivers with ambient take-over requests in highly automated driving. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 237--244. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shadan Sadeghian Borojeni, Susanne C.J. Boll, Wilko Heuten, Heinrich H. Bülthoff HH, & Lewis Chuang (2018) Feel the Movement: Real Motion Influences Responses to Take-over Requests in Highly Automated Vehicles, CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18), ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 246, 1--13. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Remo M.A. van der Heiden, Shamsi T. Iqbal, and Christian P. Janssen. 2017. Priming Drivers before Handover in Semi-Autonomous Cars. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 392--404. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christopher D. Wickens. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 239--257). Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
- Christopher D. Wickens. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 159--177.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christopher D. Wickens. (2008). Multiple Resources and Mental Workload. Human Factors, 50(3), 449--455.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joost de Winter, Riender Happee, Marieke H. Martens, & Neville A. Stanton. 2014. Effects of adaptive cruise control and highly automated driving on workload and situation awareness: A review of the empirical evidence. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 27, 196--217.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Workshop on The Mobile Office
Recommendations
Are automated vehicles safer than manually driven cars?
AbstractAre automated vehicles really safer than manually driven vehicles? If so, how would we know? Answering this question has spurred a contentious debate. Unfortunately, several issues make answering this question difficult for the foreseeable future. ...
Feeling-of-Safety Slider: Measuring Pedestrian Willingness to Cross Roads in Field Interactions with Vehicles
CHI EA '19: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsCan interactions between automated vehicles and pedestrians be evaluated in a quantifiable and standardized way? In order to answer this, we designed an input device in the form of a continuous slider that enables pedestrians to indicate their ...
Exploring the concept of the (future) mobile office
AutomotiveUI '19: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications: Adjunct ProceedingsThis video shows a concept of a future mobile office in a semi-automated vehicle that uses augmented reality. People perform non-driving tasks in current, non-automated vehicles even though that is unsafe. Moreover, even for passengers there is limited ...
Comments