The aim of this study was to compare continuous versus bandwidth haptic steering guidance in terms of lane-keeping behavior, aftereffects, and satisfaction.
Background:
An important human factors question is whether operators should be supported continuously or only when tolerance limits are exceeded. We aimed to clarify this issue for haptic steering guidance by investigating costs and benefits of both approaches in a driving simulator.
Methods:
Thirty-two participants drove five trials, each with a different level of haptic support: no guidance (Manual); guidance outside a 0.5-m bandwidth (Band1); a hysteresis version of Band1, which guided back to the lane center once triggered (Band2); continuous guidance (Cont); and Cont with double feedback gain (ContS). Participants performed a reaction time task while driving. Toward the end of each trial, the guidance was unexpectedly disabled to investigate aftereffects.
Results:
All four guidance systems prevented large lateral errors (>0.7 m). Cont and especially ContS yielded smaller lateral errors and higher time to line crossing than Manual, Band1, and Band2. Cont and ContS yielded short-lasting aftereffects, whereas Band1 and Band2 did not. Cont yielded higher self-reported satisfaction and faster reaction times than Band1.
Conclusions:
Continuous and bandwidth guidance both prevent large driver errors. Continuous guidance yields improved performance and satisfaction over bandwidth guidance at the cost of aftereffects and variability in driver torque (indicating human–automation conflicts).
Application:
The presented results are useful for designers of haptic guidance systems and support critical thinking about the costs and benefits of automation support systems.
AbbinkD. A.MulderM.BoerE. R. (2012). Haptic shared control: Smoothly shifting control authority?Cognition, Technology & Work, 14, 19–28.
2.
BreznitzS. (1984). Cry wolf: The psychology of false alarms. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
BrookhuisK. A.De WaardD. (1993). The use of psychophysiology to assess driver status. Ergonomics, 36, 1099–1110.
4.
ConoverW. J.ImanR. L. (1981). Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. American Statistician, 35, 124–129.
5.
ConoverW. J. (1997). Some limitations of the rank transformation test for interaction. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Conference on the Design of Experiments in Army Research Development and Testing (pp. 177–180). Washington, DC: Department of Defense. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA328382
6.
DamböckD.WeißgerberT.KienleM.BenglerK. (2013). Requirements for cooperative vehicle guidance. In Proceedings of the 16th International IEEE Annual Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC 2013) (pp. 1656–1661). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
7.
De GrootS.de WinterJ. C. F.GarcíaJ. M. L.MulderM.WieringaP. A. (2011). The effect of concurrent bandwidth feedback on learning the lane-keeping task in a driving simulator. Human Factors, 53, 50–62.
8.
De VriesP.MiddenC.BouwhuisD. (2003). The effects of errors on system trust, self-confidence, and the allocation of control in route planning. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 58, 719–735.
9.
de WinterJ. C. F.DodouD. (2011). Preparing drivers for dangerous situations: A critical reflection on continuous shared control. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (pp. 1050–1056). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
10.
de WinterJ. C. F.MulderM.Van PaassenM. M.AbbinkD. A.WieringaP. A. (2008). A two-dimensional weighting function for a driver assistance system. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics–Part B: Cybernetics, 38, 189–195.
11.
ErnstM. O.BanksM. S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 415, 429–433.
12.
FentonR. E. (1966). An improved man-machine interface for the driver-vehicle system. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, 7, 150–157.
13.
FentonR. E.MontanoW. B. (1968). An intervehicular spacing display for improved car-following performance. IEEE Transactions on Man–Machine Systems, 9, 29–35.
14.
FlemischF. O.KelschJ.LöperC.SchiebenA.SchindlerJ.HeesenM. (2008). Cooperative control and active interfaces for vehicle assistance and automation. FISITA World Automotive Congress, 1, 301–310.
15.
ForsythB. A. C.MacLeanK. E. (2006). Predictive haptic guidance: Intelligent user assistance for the control of dynamic tasks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 12, 103–113.
16.
GibsonJ. J.CrooksL. E. (1938). A theoretical field-analysis of automobile driving. American Journal of Psychology, 51, 453–471.
17.
GodthelpH.MilgramP.BlaauwG. J. (1984). The development of a time-related measure to describe driving strategy. Human Factors, 26, 257–268.
18.
GoldC.DamböckD.LorenzL.BenglerK. (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 57th Annual Meeting (pp. 1938–1942). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
19.
GoodrichK. H.SchutteP. C.FlemischF. O.WilliamsR. A. (2006). Application of the H-Mode, a design and interaction concept for highly automated vehicles, to aircraft. In 25th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2006 IEEE/AIAA (pp. 1–13). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
20.
GordonN. B.GottliebM. J. (1967). Effect of supplemental visual cues on rotary pursuit. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75, 566–568.
21.
GriffithsP. G.GillespieR. B. (2005). Sharing control between humans and automation using haptic interface: Primary and secondary task performance benefits. Human Factors, 47, 574–590.
22.
HancockP. A.ScallenS. F. (1999). The driving question. Transportation Human Factors, 1, 47–55.
23.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP. A.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Human mental workload (Vol. 1, pp. 139–183). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland Press.
24.
ImanR. L.HoraS. C.ConoverW. J. (1984). Comparison of asymptotically distribution-free procedures for the analysis of complete blocks. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 674–685.
25.
JamsonH.HibberdD. L.MeratN. (2013). The design of haptic gas pedal feedback to support eco-driving. In Proceedings of the 7th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design (pp. 264–270). Iowa City: University of Iowa.
26.
JanssenW. J.NilssonL. (1992). An experimental evaluation of in-vehicle collision avoidance systems. Delft, Netherlands: Instituut voor Zintuigfysiologie, TNO.
27.
JermakianJ. S. (2011). Crash avoidance potential of four passenger vehicle technologies. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43, 732–740.
28.
KienleM.DamböckD.BubbH.BenglerK.J. (2012). The ergonomic value of a bidirectional haptic interface when driving a highly automated vehicle. Cognition, Technology & Work, 15, 475–482.
29.
LarssenA. F. L. (2012). Driver usage and understanding of adaptive cruise control. Applied Ergonomics, 43, 501–506.
30.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50–80.
31.
LevitanL.GolembiewskiG.BloomfieldJ. R. (1998). Human factors issues for automated highway systems. Intelligent Transportation Systems Journal, 4, 21–47.
32.
MarsF.DerooM.HocJ. M. (2014). Analysis of human–machine cooperation when driving with different degrees of haptic shared control. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 7, 724–733.
33.
MarsF.SalehL.ChevrelP.ClaveauF.LafayJ. F. (2011). Modeling the visual and motor control of steering with an eye to shared-control automation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 55th Annual Meeting (pp. 1422–1426). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
34.
MohebbiR.GrayR.TanH. Z.LafayetteW. (2009). Driver reaction time to tactile and auditory rear-end collision warnings while talking on a cell phone. Human Factors, 51, 102–110.
35.
MulderM.AbbinkD. A.BoerE. R. (2008). The effect of haptic guidance on curve negotiation behavior of young, experienced drivers. In IEEE International Conference on, Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2008 (pp. 804–809). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
36.
MulderM.AbbinkD. A.BoerE. R. (2012). Sharing control with haptics: Seamless driver support from manual to automatic control. Human Factors, 54, 786–798.
37.
NilssonJ.StrandN.FalconeP.VinterJ. (2013). Driver performance in the presence of adaptive cruise control related failures: Implications for safety analysis and fault tolerance. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual IEEE/IFIP Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks Workshop (pp. 1–10). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
38.
NirschG.EckR. (1994). Driver- and situation-specific effects on assistance systems for speed and distance control. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting (pp. 857–861). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
39.
OnnaschL.WickensC. D.LiH.ManzeyD. (2013). Human performance consequences of stages and levels of automation: An integrated meta-analysis. Human Factors, 56, 476–488.
40.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.
41.
ReasonJ. (1987). Cognitive aids in process environments: Prostheses or tools?International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 27, 463–470.
42.
SchmidtR. A.WulfG. (1997). Continuous concurrent feedback degrades skill learning: Implications for training and simulation. Human Factors, 39, 509–525.
43.
ScottJ. J.GrayR. (2008). A comparison of tactile, visual, and auditory warnings for rear-end collision prevention in simulated driving. Human Factors, 50, 264–275.
44.
ShadmehrR.Brashers-KrugT. (1997). Functional stages in the formation of human long-term motor memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 409–419.
45.
SharekD. (2011). A useable, online NASA-TLX tool. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 55th Annual Meeting (pp. 1375–1379). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
46.
StanleyL. M. (2006). Haptic and auditory cues for lane departure warnings. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (pp. 2405–2408). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
47.
StantonN. A.YoungM.McCaulderB. (1997). Drive-by-wire: The case of driver workload and reclaiming control with adaptive cruise control. Safety Science, 27, 149–159.
48.
SteeleM.GillespieR. B. (2001). Shared control between human and machine: Using a haptic steering wheel to aid in land vehicle guidance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting (pp. 1671–1675). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
49.
SwinnenS. P. (1996). Information feedback for motor skill learning: A review. In ZelaznikH. N. (Ed.), Advances in motor learning and control (pp. 37–66). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
50.
SuzukiK.JanssonH. (2003). An analysis of driver’s steering behaviour during auditory or haptic warnings for the designing of lane departure warning system. JSAE Review, 24, 65–70.
51.
Van Der LaanJ. D.HeinoA.De WaardD. (1997). A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 5, 1–10.
52.
Van WinsumW.BrookhuisK. A.De WaardD. (2000). A comparison of different ways to approximate time-to-line crossing (TLC) during car driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 32, 47–56.
53.
WilliamsA. C.BriggsG. E. (1962). On-target versus off-target information and the acquisition of tracking skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 519–525.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
