The objective for this study was to investigate the effects of prior familiarization with takeover requests (TORs) during conditional automated driving on drivers’ initial takeover performance and automation trust.
Background:
System-initiated TORs are one of the biggest concerns for conditional automated driving and have been studied extensively in the past. Most, but not all, of these studies have included training sessions to familiarize participants with TORs. This makes them hard to compare and might obscure first-failure-like effects on takeover performance and automation trust formation.
Method:
A driving simulator study compared drivers’ takeover performance in two takeover situations across four prior familiarization groups (no familiarization, description, experience, description and experience) and automation trust before and after experiencing the system.
Results:
As hypothesized, prior familiarization with TORs had a more positive effect on takeover performance in the first than in a subsequent takeover situation. In all groups, automation trust increased after participants experienced the system. Participants who were given no prior familiarization with TORs reported highest automation trust both before and after experiencing the system.
Conclusion:
The current results extend earlier findings suggesting that prior familiarization with TORs during conditional automated driving will be most relevant for takeover performance in the first takeover situation and that it lowers drivers’ automation trust.
Application:
Potential applications of this research include different approaches to familiarize users with automated driving systems, better integration of earlier findings, and sophistication of experimental designs.
BahnerJ. E.HüperA.-D.ManzeyD. (2008). Misuse of automated decision aids: Complacency, automation bias and the impact of training experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66, 688–699. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.06.001
2.
BeggiatoM.KremsJ. F. (2013). The evolution of mental model, trust and acceptance of adaptive cruise control in relation to initial information. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 18, 47–57. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2012.12.006
3.
CahourB.ForzyJ. F. (2009). Does projection into use improve trust and exploration? An example with a cruise control system. Safety Science, 47, 1260–1270.
4.
ChienS.-Y.LewisM.HergethS.Semnani-AzadZ.SycaraK. (2015). Cross-country validation of a cultural scale in measuring trust in automation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 59th Annual Meeting (pp. 686–690). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. doi:10.1177/1541931215591149
5.
ChienS. Y.Semnani-AzadZ.LewisM.SycaraK. (2014). Towards the development of an inter-cultural scale to measure trust in automation. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 8528 LNCS, pp. 35–46). Basel, Switzerland: Springer International. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07308-8_4
6.
DamböckD.FaridM.TönertL.BenglerK. (2012, May). Übernahmezeiten beim hochautomatisierten Fahren [Takeover times in highly automated driving]. Paper presented at the 5. Tagung Fahrerassistenz, Munich, Germany.
7.
FieldA.MilesJ.FieldZ. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. London, UK: Sage.
8.
GasserT. M.ArztC.AyoubiM.BartelsA.BürkleL.EierJ.. . . VogtW. (2012). Rechtsfolgen zunehmender Fahrzeugautomatisierung [Legal consequences of increasing vehicle automation] (Berichte der Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen Heft F 83). Retrieved from http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1217277
9.
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. doi:10.1177/1541931213571433
10.
GoldC.KörberM.HohenbergerC.LechnerD.BenglerK. (2015). Trust in automation—before and after the experience of take-over scenarios in a highly automated vehicle. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 3025–3032.
11.
GoldC.LorenzL.BenglerK. (2014, June). Influence of automated brake application on take-over situations in highly automated driving scenarios. Paper presented at the FISITA 2014 World Automotive Congress, Maastricht, Netherlands.
12.
HaywardJ. C. (1972). Near miss determination through use of a scale of danger (Highway Research Record No. 384). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
13.
HergethS.LorenzL.KremsJ.ToenertL. (2015, June). Effects of take-over requests and cultural background on automation trust in highly automated driving. In Proceedings of the 8th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, Snowbird, Utah.
14.
HoffK. A.BashirM. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57, 407–434. doi:10.1177/0018720814547570
15.
HoffmanL.RovineM. J. (2007). Multilevel models for the experimental psychologist: Foundations and illustrative examples. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 101–117. doi:10.3758/BF03192848
16.
International Organization for Standardization. (2012). ISO/TS 14198:2012: Road vehicles—Ergonomic aspects of transport information and control systems—Calibration tasks for methods which assess driver demand due to the use of in-vehicle systems. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
17.
KoustanaiA.MasA.CavalloV.DelhommeP. (2010). Familiarization with a forward collision warning on driving simulator: Cost and benefit on driver-system interactions and trust. In Driving Simulation Conference 2010 Europe (pp. 169–179). Retrieved from http://www.ups2009.ensam.eu/arca/items/fGr_VF9xnYqb5ByY9f2pEw-Koustanai.pdf
18.
LorenzL.KerschbaumP.SchumannJ. (2014). Designing take over scenarios for automated driving: How does augmented reality support the driver to get back into the loop? In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting (pp. 1681–1685). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
19.
LouwT.MeratN.JamsonH. (2015). Engaging with highly automated driving: To be or not to be in the loop? In Proceedings of the Eighth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design (pp. 189–195). Iowa City: University of Iowa.
20.
ManzeyD.ReichenbachJ.OnnaschL. (2012). Human performance consequences of automated decision aids: The impact of degree of automation and system experience. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 6, 57–87. doi:10.1177/1555343411433844
21.
MarinikA.BishopR.FitchettV.MorganJ. F.TrimbleT. E.BlancoM. (2014, July). Human factors evaluation of level 2 and level 3 automated driving concepts: Concepts of operation (Report No. DOT HS 812 044). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
22.
MeratN.JamsonH. A. (2009). How do drivers behave in a highly automated car? In Proceedings of the Fifth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design (pp. 514–521). Iowa City: University of Iowa.
23.
MeratN.JamsonA. H.LaiF. C. H.DalyM.CarstenO. M. J. (2014). Transition to manual: Driver behaviour when resuming control from a highly automated vehicle. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 27, 274–282. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2014.05.006
24.
MorayN.InagakiT. (1999). Laboratory studies of trust between humans and machines in automated systems. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, 21, 203–211. doi:10.1177/014233129902100408
25.
NaujoksF.PuruckerC.NeukumA.WolterS.SteigerR. (2015). Controllability of partially automated driving functions: Does it matter whether drivers are allowed to take their hands off the steering wheel?Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 35, 185–198. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2015.10.022
26.
NeukumA.LübekkeT.KrügerH.-P.MayserC.SteinleJ. (2008). ACC-Stop&Go: Fahrerverhalten an funktionalen Systemgrenzen [ACC-Stop&Go: Driver behavior at functional system boundaries]. In MaurerM.StillerC. (Eds.), 5. Workshop Fahrerassistenzsysteme (pp. 141–150). Karlsruhe: FMRT.
27.
ParasuramanR.ManzeyD. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors, 52, 381–410. doi:10.1177/0018720810376055
28.
ParasuramanR.MoulouaM.MolloyR. (1996). Effects of adaptive task allocation on monitoring of automated systems. Human Factors, 38, 665–679. doi:10.1518/001872096778827279
29.
Petermann-StockI.HackenbergL.MuhrT.MerglC. (2013, November). Wie lange braucht der Fahrer? Eine Analyse zu Übernahmezeiten aus verschiedenen Nebentätigkeiten während einer hochautomatisierten Staufahrt [How long does the driver take? An analysis of take-over times from different secondary tasks during a highly automated traffic jam drive]. Paper presented at the 6. Tagung Fahrerassistenz, Munich, Germany.
30.
PinheiroJ.BatesD.DebRoyS.SarkarD., R Core Team (2016). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models (R Package Version 3.1-128). Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme
31.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
32.
RadlmayrJ.BenglerK. (2015). Literaturanalyse und Methodenauswahl zur Gestaltung von Systemen zum hochautomatisierten Fahren [Literature analysis and method selection for designing highly automated driving systems] (Fachschriftenreihe der Forschungsvereinigung Automobiltechnik Band 276). Retrieved from Verband der Automobilindustrie website: https://www.vda.de/dam/vda/publications/2015/FAT-Schriftenreihe_277/FAT-Schriftenreihe_276.pdf
33.
RadlmayrJ.GoldC.LorenzL.FaridM.BenglerK. (2014). How traffic situations and non-driving related tasks affect the take-over quality in highly automated driving. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting (pp. 2063–2067). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
34.
Rudin-BrownC. M.ParkerH. A. (2004). Behavioural adaptation to adaptive cruise control (ACC): Implications for preventive strategies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 7, 59–76.
35.
RuppJ. D.KingA. G. (2010). Autonomous driving: A practical roadmap (SAE Technical Paper No. 2010-01-2335). doi:10.4271/2010-01-2335
36.
RuscioD.CiceriM. R.BiassoniF. (2015). How does a collision warning system shape driver’s brake response time? The influence of expectancy and automation complacency on real-life emergency braking. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 77, 72–81.
37.
SAE International, On-Road Automated Vehicle Standards Committee. (2014). Surface vehicle information report: Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to on-road motor vehicle automated driving systems (J3016). Warrendale, PA: SAE International.
38.
SanchezJ.RogersW. A.FiskA. D.RoviraE. (2014). Understanding reliance on automation: Effects of error type, error distribution, age and experience. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 15(2), 1–27. doi:10.1080/1463922X.2011.611269
39.
SkitkaL. J.MosierK. L.BurdickM.RosenblattB. (2000). Automation bias and errors: Are crews better than individuals?International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10, 85–97. doi:10.1207/S15327108IJAP1001_5
40.
StrandN.NilssonJ.KarlssonI. C. M.NilssonL. (2014). Semi-automated versus highly automated driving in critical situations caused by automation failures. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 27, 218–228. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2014.04.005
41.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
42.
TrimbleT. E.BishopR.MorganJ. F.BlancoM. (2014, July). Human factors evaluation of level 2 and level 3 automated driving concepts: Past research, state of automation technology, and emerging system concepts (Report No. DOT HS 812 043). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
43.
VogelK. (2003). A comparison of headway and time to collision as safety indicators. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35, 427–433.
44.
WickensC. D.HollandsJ. G.BanburyS.ParasuramanR. (2013). Engineering psychology and human performance (4th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
45.
WickensC. D.XuX. (2002). Automation trust, reliability and attention (Tech. Rep. No. AHFD-02-14/MAAD-02-2). Savoy, IL: Aviation Human Factors Division, Institute of Aviation.
46.
WilcoxR. (2005). Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
47.
WilcoxR. R.KeselmanH. J. (2003). Modern robust data analysis methods: Measures of central tendency. Psychological Methods, 8, 254.
48.
ZeebK.BuchnerA.SchraufM. (2015). What determines the take-over time? An integrated model approach of driver take-over after automated driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 78, 212–221. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2015.02.023
