skip to main content
10.1145/3349263.3351517acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesautomotiveuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Work in Progress

HMI-testing for (non-) automated vehicles in urban connected mixed traffic: cooperative lane change

Published:21 September 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Lane changing actions in urban traffic can be highly risky. Drivers need to choose gaps in traffic flow adequately and synchronize their driving behavior with directly surrounding vehicles. Especially in urgent cases such as an approaching emergency vehicle, successful and safe lane changes are of high value. Automating vehicles as well as the use of innovative communication technologies could reduce this potential hazard, as advanced vehicles will be able to cooperate and negotiate maneuvers efficiently. Making these processes transparent and comprehensible to the driver is not only inevitable for the acceptance of these innovations, but in consequence also for establishing a safer and more efficient traffic. For this purpose, two different human machine interface (HMI) concepts for users of highly automated connected vehicles as well as for non-automated connected vehicles have been developed and evaluated w.r.t. usability aspects, acceptability and subjective workload.

References

  1. Samer Ammoun, Fawzi Nashashibi, and Claude Laurgeau. 2007. An analysis of the lane changing manoeuvre on roads: the contribution of inter-vehicle cooperation via communication. Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Istanbul, 13--15 June 2007: 1095--1100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Michael Behrisch, Laura Bieker, Jakob Erdmann, and Daniel Krajzewicz. 2011. SUMO-simulation of urban mobility: an overview. In Proceedings of SIMUL 2011, The Third International Conference on Advances in System Simulation. ThinkMind.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. John Brooke. 1996. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry 189, 194: 4--7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. DIN EN ISO 9241-210. 2011. Prozess zur Gestaltung gebrauchstauglicher interaktiver Systeme. Standard, ISO.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Sandra G. Hart. 2006. NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 50, 9: 904--908.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Andrea Hölzel. 2008. Unterscheidung von formeller und informeller Kommunikation im Straßenverkehr. Diploma thesis. Vienna University, Vienna, Austria.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jeamin Koo, Jungsuk Kwac, Wendy Ju, Martin Steinert, Larry Leifer, and Clifford Nass. 2015. Why did my car just do that? Explaining semi-autonomous driving actions to improve driver understanding, trust, and performance. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM) 9: 269--275.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Tobias Lagström and Victor M. Lundgren. 2015. AVIP - Autonomous vehicles' interaction with pedestrians. An investigation of pedestrian-driver communication and development of a vehicle external interface. Master Thesis. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenberg, Sweden.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. André Leschke and Florian Weinert. 2016. Car2X-Kommunikation als Grundlage für Effizienz-und Assistenzfunktionen für den Verkehr der Zukunft. In: Automobil Symposium Wildau.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Morten Moshagen and Meinald T. Thielsch. 2010. Facets of visual aesthetics. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 68, 10: 689--709.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Janni Nielsen, Torkil Clemmensen, and Carsten Yssing. 2002. Getting access to what goes on in people's heads?: reflections on the think-aloud technique. In Proceedings of the second Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction (ACM), 101--110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Don Norman. 2013. The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. SAE. 2014. Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to on-road motor vehicle automated driving systems. SAE Standard J3016, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Martin Schrepp, Andreas Hinderks, and Jörg Thomaschewski. 2017. Design and evaluation of a short version of the user experience questionnaire (UEQ-S). International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence 4, 6: 103--108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Sabine Springer, Cornelia Schmidt, and Franziska Schmalfuß. 2018. Informationsbedarf von Nutzern konventioneller, vernetzter und automatisierter, vernetzter Fahrzeuge im urbanen Mischverkehr. In VDI, editor, Fahrerassistenzsysteme und automatisiertes Fahren 2018 (VDI Berichte 2335), 391--406. VDI-Verlag GmbH, Düsseldorf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Neville A. Stanton, Mark S. Young. 1998. Vehicle automation and driving performance. Ergonomics 41, 7: 1014--1028.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Systems Technology. n.d.. STISIM Drive - Scenario Definition Language (SDL). Retrieved 20 June 2019 from http://web.mit.edu/16.400/www/auto_sim/Help/SDL.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Jinke D. van der Laan, Adriaan Heino, and Dick de Waard. 1997. A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 5, 1: 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. HMI-testing for (non-) automated vehicles in urban connected mixed traffic: cooperative lane change

    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

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader