Fully Automated Driving

Abstract

Objective:

An experiment was performed in a driving simulator to investigate the impacts of practice, trust, and interaction on manual control recovery (MCR) when employing fully automated driving (FAD).

Background:

To increase the use of partially or highly automated driving efficiency and to improve safety, some studies have addressed trust in driving automation and training, but few studies have focused on FAD. FAD is an autonomous system that has full control of a vehicle without any need for intervention by the driver.

Method:

A total of 69 drivers with a valid license practiced with FAD. They were distributed evenly across two conditions: simple practice and elaborate practice.

Results:

When examining emergency MCR, a correlation was found between trust and reaction time in the simple practice group (i.e., higher trust meant a longer reaction time), but not in the elaborate practice group. This result indicated that to mitigate the negative impact of overtrust on reaction time, more appropriate practice may be needed.

Conclusions:

Drivers should be trained in how the automated device works so as to improve MCR performance in case of an emergency.

Application:

The practice format used in this study could be used for the first interaction with an FAD car when acquiring such a vehicle.

Keywords

fully automated driving manual control recovery practice trust

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bainbridge

(1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19(6), 775–779.

Brookhuis

K. A.

de Waard

(2006). Consequences of automation for driver behavior and acceptance. Proceedings of the 16th IEA Congress. [CD-ROM]. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Cohen

M. S.

Parasuraman

Freeman

J. T.

(1998). Trust in decision aids: A model and its training implications. Proceedings of the 1998 Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (pp. 255–265). Washington, DC: Department of Defense, Command and Control Research Program.

Desmond

P. A.

Hancock

P. A.

Monette

J. L.

(1998). Fatigue and automation-induced impairments in simulated driving performance. Transportation Research Record, 1628, 8–14.

de Waard

van der Hulst

Hoedemaeker

Brookhuis

K. A.

(1999). Driver behavior in an emergency situation in the Automated Highway System. Transportation Human Factors, 1, 67–82.

Dzindolet

M. T.

Peterson

S. A.

Pomranky

R. A.

Pierce

L. G.

Beck

H. P.

(2003). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 697–718.

Federal Aviation Administration. (2013). Operational use of flight path management systems. Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/afs/afs400/parc/parc_reco/media/2013/130908_PARC_FltDAWG_Final_Report_Recommendations.pdf.

Hatakka

Keskinen

Gregersen

N. P.

Glad

Hernetkoski

(2002). From control of the vehicle to personal self-control; broadening the perspectives to driver education. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 201–215.

Hoc

J. M.

Mars

Milleville-Pennel

(2006). Human-machine cooperation in car driving for lateral safety: Delegation and mutual control. Le Travail Humain, 69(2), 153–182.

10.

Hoc

J. M.

Young

M. S.

Blosseville

J. M.

(2009). Cooperation between drivers and automation: Implications for safety. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 10, 135–160.

11.

Hoff

K. A.

Bashir

(2014). Trust in automation integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors. doi:10.1177/0018720814547570

12.

Inagaki

(1999). Situation-adaptive autonomy: Trading control of authority in human-machine systems. In Scerbo

M. W.

Mouloua

(Eds.), Automation technology and human performance: Current research and trends (pp. 154–159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Inagaki

(2006). Design of human–machine interactions in light of domain-dependence of human-centered automation. Cognition, Technology & Work, 8(3), 161–167.

14.

Inagaki

Furukawa

(2004, October). Computer simulation for the design of authority in the adaptive cruise control systems under possibility of driver’s over-trust in automation. In Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2004 IEEE International Conference on (Vol. 4, pp. 3932–3937). New York: IEEE.

15.

Kaber

D. B.

Endsley

M. R.

(1997). Out-of-the-loop performance problems and the use of intermediate levels of automation for improved control system functioning and safety. Process Safety Progress, 16(3), 126–131.

16.

Kopf

Nirschl

(1997). Driver–vehicle interaction while driving with ACC in borderline situations. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, Berlin, Germany.

17.

Kopf

Simon

(2001). A concept for a learn-adaptive advanced driver assistance system. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Conference on Cognitive Science Approaches, Neubiberg, Germany.

18.

Lee

J. D.

Moray

(1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243–1270.

19.

Lee

J. D.

Moray

(1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operator’s adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 153–184.

20.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A.

(2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50–80.

21.

Manstetten

Krautter

Engeln

Zahn

Simon

Kuhn

Frank

Junge

Lehrach

Buld

(2003). Learnability of driver assistance systems – invent FVM – driver behavior and human machine interaction. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 10th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, Madrid, Spain.

22.

May

J. F.

Baldwin

C. L.

(2009). Driver fatigue: The importance of identifying causal factors of fatigue when considering detection and countermeasure technologies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12, 218–224. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2008.11.005

23.

McClellan

J. M.

(1994). Can you trust your autopilot? Flying, 76–83.

24.

Muir

B. M.

(1987). Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aides. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27, 527–539.

25.

Muir

B. M.

Moray

(1996). Trust in automation: Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39(3), 429–460.

26.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2013). Preliminary statement of policy concerning automated vehicles. Retrieved from http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/Automated_Vehicles_Policy.pdf

27.

Neubauer

Matthews

Saxby

(2012). The effects of cell phone use and automation on driver performance and subjective state in simulated driving. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 1987–1991). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

28.

Orr

J. M.

Sackett

P. R.

DuBois

C. L. Z.

(1991). Outlier detection and treatment in I/O psychology: A survey of researcher beliefs and an empirical illustration. Personnel Psychology, 44, 473–486.

29.

Parasuraman

Manzey

(2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors, 52, 381–410.

30.

Parasuraman

Riley

V. A.

(1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse, Human Factors, 39, 230–253.

31.

Parasuraman

Sheridan

T. B.

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.

32.

Payre

Cestac

Delhomme

(2014). Intention to use a fully automated car: Attitudes and a priori acceptability. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 27(Part B), 252–263. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2014.04.009

33.

Saad

Hjälmdahl

Cañas

Alonso

Garayo

Macchi

Nathan

Ojeda

Papakostopoulos

Panou

Bekiaris

(2004). Literature review of behavioural effects. AIDE, Deliverable 1.2.1.

34.

Saxby

D. J.

Matthews

Hitchcock

E. M.

Warm

J. S.

(2008). Development of active and passive fatigue manipulations using a driving simulator. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 51st Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD.

35.

Saxby

D. J.

Matthews

Warm

J. S.

Hitchcock

E. M.

Neubauer

(2013). Active and passive fatigue in simulated driving: Discriminating styles of workload regulation and their safety impacts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19(4), 287.

36.

Stanton

N. A.

Young

M. S.

(1998). Vehicle automation and driving performance. Ergonomics, 41(7), 1014–1028. doi.org/10.1080/001401398186568

37.

Stanton

N. A.

Young

M. S.

Walker

G. H.

Turner

Randle

(2001). Automating the driver’s control tasks. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 5(3), 221–236. doi:10.1207/S15327566IJCE0503_5

38.

Weinberger

Winner

Bubb

(2001). Adaptive cruise control field operational test—The learning phase. JSAE, 22, 487–494.

39.

Wickens

C. D.

Gempler

Morphew

M. E.

(2000). Workload and reliability of predictor displays in aircraft traffic avoidance. Transportation Human Factors, 2, 99–126.

40.

Wickens

C. D.

Hollands

J. G.

(2000). Engineering psychology and human performance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

41.

Wiener

E. L.

(1981). Complacency: Is the term useful for air safety? In Proceedings of the 26th Corporate Aviation Safety Seminar (pp. 116–125). Denver, CO: Flight Safety Foundation, Inc.

42.

Young

M. S.

Stanton

N. A.

(2007). What’s skill got to do with it? Vehicle automation and driver mental workload. Ergonomics, 50(8), 1324–1339.