Helena Strömberg
ABSTRACT
In fully automated vehicles, human participation in the driving task is unnecessary but some involvement is desired from a user acceptance and experience perspective. A new collaborative relationship will need to be established, thus this study explores how users perceive different relationships between vehicle and human and which preferences they hold. For the study, four prototypes of interaction designs were developed, each embodying one hypothesis for a collaborative relationship. They were tested with 24 drivers in a scenario-based within-subject study using a very simple driving simulator. Each participant tested two prototypes, and half of participants noticed a difference between the pair they experienced. Differences were seen relating to the dimension of adaptation, like how involved the vehicle invited them to be, how it presented options and how the interaction made them feel more or less responsible. The different interpretations of control appear to have played a central role in the participants’ experiences of the different relationships. In conclusion, the study reinforces the importance of explicitly designing the collaborative relationship between human and vehicle, as well as provides formative insight on which criteria that will need to inform the design of future human – vehicle relationships.
- Johns, M., Mok, B., Sirkin, D. M., Gowda, N. M., Smith, C. A., Jr, W. J. T. and Ju, W. (2016) Exploring Shared Control in Automated Driving. In Proceedings of the The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction (Christchurch, New Zealand, 2016). IEEE Press. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Bruemmer, D. J., Gertman, D. I. and Nielsen, C. W. (2007) Metaphors to Drive By: Exploring New Ways to Guide Human-Robot Interaction. Open Cybernetics & Systemics Journal, 1, 5-12.Google ScholarCross Ref
- SAE International (2018) Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, J3016_201806. SAE International.Google Scholar
- Richards, D. and Stedmon, A. (2016) To delegate or not to delegate: A review of control frameworks for autonomous cars. Applied Ergonomics, 53, Part B, 383-388.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yang, J. H., Han, J. and Park, J.-M. (2017) Toward Defining Driving Automation from a Human-Centered Perspective. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA, 2017). ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lee, J. D. (2018) Perspectives on Automotive Automation and Autonomy, Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making,12, 1, 53-57.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rödel, C., Stadler, S., Meschtscherjakov, A. and Tscheligi, M. (2014) Towards Autonomous Cars: The Effect of Autonomy Levels on Acceptance and User Experience. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Seattle, WA, USA, 2014). ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Frison, A.-K., Wintersberger, P., Riener, A., and Schartmüller, C. (2017) Driving Hotzenplotz: A Hybrid Interface for Vehicle Control Aiming to Maximize Pleasure in Highway Driving. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Oldenburg, Germany, 2017). ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Waytz, A., Heafner, J. and Epley, N. (2014) The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 113-117.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Forster, Y., Naujoks, F. and Neukum, A. (2017) Increasing anthropomorphism and trust in automated driving functions by adding speech output. IEEE International Vehicle Symposium, 365-372.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Flemisch, F. O., Adams, C. A., Conway, S. R., Goodrich, K. H., Palmer, M. T. and Schutte, P. C. (2003) The H-Metaphor as a Guideline for Vehicle Automation and Interaction. NASA Technical Report.Google Scholar
- Ju, W. (2015) The Design of Implicit Interactions. Morgan and Claypool. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Woods, D. D. (1998) Designs are hypotheses about how artifacts shape cognition and collaboration. Ergonomics, 41, 2, 168-173.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Beer, J., Fisk, A. D. and Rogers, W. A. (2014) Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 3, 2, 74. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B. and Wickens, C. D. (2000) A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, 30, 3, 286-297. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hinds, P. J., Roberts, T. L. and Jones, H. (2004) Whose Job Is It Anyway? A Study of Human-Robot Interaction in a Collaborative Task. Human–Computer Interaction, 19, 1-2, 151-181. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Parker, G. M. (2008) Team players and teamwork - new strategies for developing successful collaboration, 2nd ed.Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco, CA.Google Scholar
- Bradshaw, J. M., Feltovich, P., Johnson, M., Breedy, M., Bunch, L., Eskridge, T., Jung, H., Lott, J., Uszok, A. and van Diggelen, J. (2009) From Tools to Teammates: Joint Activity in Human-Agent-Robot Teams. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, City.Google Scholar
- Woods, D. D. and Christoffersen, K. (2002) How to make automated systems team players. Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research, Volume 2,1-12.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Degani, A., Goldman, C. V., Deutsch, O., and Tsimhoni, O. (2017) On human–machine relations. Cognition, Technology and Work 19, 2, 211-231. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Leotti, L. A., Iyengar, S. S. and Ochsner, K. N. (2010) Born to choose: The origins and value of the need for control. Trends in cognitive sciences 14, 10, 457-463.Google Scholar
- Cordova, D. I. and Lepper, M. R. (1996) Intrinsic Motivation and the Process of Learning: Beneficial Effects of Contextualization, Personalization, and Choice. Journal of Educational Psychology 88, 4, 715-730.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Johnson, C. A. (1974) Privacy as personal control. Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, City.Google Scholar
- Burger, J. M. and Cooper, H. M. (1979) The desirability of control. Motivation and Emotion, 3, 4, 381-393.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Burger, J. M. (2013) Desire for control: Personality, social and clinical perspectives. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
- Hollnagel, E. and D.D. Woods, Joint cognitive systems: foundations of cognitive systems engineering. 2005, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Google ScholarCross Ref
Recommendations
The Automation of the Taxi Industry – Taxi Drivers’ Expectations and Attitudes Towards the Future of their Work
AbstractAdvoc ates of autonomous driving predict that the occupation of taxi driver could be made obsolete by shared autonomous vehicles (SAV) in the long term. Conducting interviews with German taxi drivers, we investigate how they perceive the changes ...
Dynamic intersections and self-driving vehicles
ICCPS '18: Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Cyber-Physical SystemsConnected and automated vehicles are expected to be at the core of future intelligent transportation systems. One of the main practical challenges for self-driving vehicles on public roads is safe cooperation and collaboration among multiple vehicles ...
A merging protocol for self-driving vehicles
ICCPS '17: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cyber-Physical SystemsSelf-driving vehicle technologies are progressing rapidly and are expected to play a significant role in the future of transportation. One of the main challenges for self-driving vehicles on public roads is the safe cooperation and collaboration among ...
Comments