Céline Poisson
ABSTRACT
In this paper, we analyzed driver behavior during automated driving in two experimental conditions, a Driving Simulator (DS) and a Wizard of Oz vehicle (WOz). Twenty-nine drivers in the DS condition and nine drivers in the WOz condition performed three different requests to intervene (RTI) during automated driving (AD). Three variables were measured, the number of control checks during AD and non-driving related tasks (NDRT), the reaction time to resume manual control and the strategy used to recover control. Differences were found concerning road monitoring during NDRT, there are more interruptions in the WOz condition than in the DS condition. Additionally, the strategies used to recover control were different between conditions, the steering wheel and brake pedal were used more often in the WOz condition while the accelerator was used more often in the DS condition. However, no difference was found concerning reaction time to resume control.
- Paul M. Fitts. 1951. Human engineering for an effective air-navigation and traffic-control system. Report of Ohio state university research foundation/National Research Council, Washington.Google Scholar
- Charles E. Billings. 1991. Human-centered aircraft automation: A concept and guidelines. NASA Technical Memorandum 103885.Google Scholar
- Raja Parasuraman and Mustapha Mouloua. 1996. Automation and human performance: Theory and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
- Karel A. Brookhuis, Dick de Waard and Wiel H. Janssen. 2001. Behavioural impacts of advanced driver assistance systems--an overview. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 1, 3 (2001), 245--253.Google Scholar
- Raja Parasuraman and Victor Riley. 1997. Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human factors 39, 2 (1997), 230--253. DOI: 10.1518/001872097778543886Google ScholarCross Ref
- Miltos Kyriakidis, Joost de Winter, Neville A. Stanton, Thierry Bellet, B. van Arem, Karel A. Brookhuis ... and Riender Happee. 2017. A human factors perspective on automated driving. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 20, 3 (2017), 223--249. DOI: 10.1080/1463922X.2017.1293187Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alexander Eriksson and Neville A. Stanton. 2017. Takeover time in highly automated vehicles: noncritical transitions to and from manual control. Human factors 59, 4 (2017), 689--705. DOI: 10.1177/0018720816685832Google ScholarCross Ref
- Natasha Merat, A. Hamish Jamson, Frank Lai and Oliver Carsten. 2012. Highly automated driving, secondary task performance, and driver state. Human factors 54, 5 (2012), 762--771. DOI: 10.1177/0018720812442087Google ScholarCross Ref
- Frederik Naujoks, Yannick Forster, Katharina Wiedemann and Alexandra Neukum. 2017. A humanmachine interface for cooperative highly automated driving. In Neville A. Stanton, Steven Landry, Giuseppe Di Bucchianico, Andrea Vallicelli (Eds.), Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation (pp. 585--595). Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
- Nadia Mullen, Judith L. Charlton, Anna Devlin and Michel Bédard, 2011. Simulator validity: Behaviors observed on the simulator and on the road. In Donald L. Fisher, Matthew Rizzo, Jeff Caird, John D. Lee (Eds.), Handbook of driving simulation for engineering, medicine, and psychology (pp. 13--1 -- 13--18). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
- Joost de Winter. P.M. van Leeuwen and Riender Happee. 2012. Advantages and disadvantages of driving simulators: A discussion. In Proceedings of 8th Measuring Behavior. Utrecht, The Netherlands, 47--50.Google Scholar
- Franziska Hartwich, Claudia Witzlack, Matthias Beggiato and Josef Krems. 2018. The first impression counts--A combined driving simulator and test track study on the development of trust and acceptance of highly automated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 65 (2018), 522--535. DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2018.05.012Google ScholarCross Ref
- William Payre, Julien Cestac, Nguyen Thong Dang, Fabrice Vienne and Patricia Delhomme. 2017. Impact of training and in-vehicle task performance on manual control recovery in an automated car. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 46 (2017), 216--227. DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2017.02.001Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wolf D. Käppler. 1993. Views on the role of simulation in driver training. In Proceedings of the 12th European Annual Conference on Human Decision Making and Manual Control. Kassel, Germany, 5.12 -- 5.17.Google Scholar
- David Hallvig, Anna Anund, Carina Fors, Göran Kecklund, Johan Karlsson, Mattias Wahde and Torbjörn Åkerstedt. 2013. Sleepy driving on the real road and in the simulator-A comparison. Accident Analysis & Prevention 50 (2013), 44--50. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2012.09.033Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel R. Mayhew, Herb M. Simpson, Katherine M. Wood, Lawrence Lonero, Kathryn M. Clinton and Amanda G. Johnson. 2011. On-road and simulated driving: Concurrent and discriminant validation. Journal of safety research 42, 4 (2011), 267--275. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2011.06.004Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alexander Eriksson, Victoria Banks and Neville A. Stanton. 2017. Transition to manual: comparing simulator with on-road control transitions. Accident Analysis & Prevention 102 (2017), 227--234. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2017.03.011Google ScholarCross Ref
- John D. Lee and Katrina A. See. 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human factors 46, 1 (2004), 50--80. DOI: 10.1518/hfes.46.1.50.30392Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael König and Lambert Neumayr. 2017. Users' resistance towards radical innovations: The case of the self-driving car. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 44 (2017), 42--52. DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2016.10.013Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jorge Santos, Natasha Merat, Sandra Mouta, Karel Brookhuis and Dick de Waard. 2005. The interaction between driving and in-vehicle information systems: Comparison of results from laboratory, simulator and real-world studies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8(2), 135--146. DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2005.04.001Google ScholarCross Ref
- Francesco Panerai, Jacques Droulez, JM Kelada, Andras Kemeny, Eric Balligand and Benoît Favre. 2001. Speed and safety distance control in truck driving: comparison of simulation and real-world environment. In Proceedings of driving simulation conference (DSC2001). Sophia-Antipolis, France. 91107.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Driver Behavior in Conditional Automation: Comparison of Driving Simulator and Wizard of Oz Conditions
Recommendations
Autonomous Driving: Investigating the Feasibility of Bimodal Take-Over Requests
Autonomous vehicles will need de-escalation strategies to compensate when reaching system limitations. Car-driver handovers can be considered one possible method to deal with system boundaries. The authors suggest a bimodal auditory and visual handover ...
Colorful Commuting Journey: Non-driving Related Tasks that Drivers Willing to Perform Across Vehicles of Various Automation Levels and the Reasons
HCI International 2023 – Late Breaking PapersAbstractAutomated vehicles relieve drivers’ physical and cognitive load from driving and enable them to freely perform non-driving related tasks (NDRTs), which is promising to free modern citizens from the cost of the daily car-driving commute. Today, ...
I Also Care in Manual Driving - Influence of Type, Position and Quantity of Oncoming Vehicles on Manual Driving Behaviour on Straights on Rural Roads
HCI International 2023 – Late Breaking PapersAbstractThere is not yet sufficient knowledge on how people want to be driven in a highly automated vehicle. Many studies suggest that automated vehicles should drive like a human driver, e.g. moving to the right edge of the lane when meeting oncoming ...
Comments