Our objective was to determine whether there is a need to go beyond measures of automation deactivation time to understand the transition to manual driving after take-over requests (TORs) using the example of office tasks as nondriving-related tasks (NDRTs).
Background
Office tasks are likely NDRTs during automated commutes to/from work. Complex tasks can influence how manual control and visual attention is recovered after TORs.
Method
N = 51 participants in a driving simulator performed either one of two office tasks or no task (between subjects). We recorded reaction times in a high-urgency and low-urgency scenario (within subjects) and analyzed task interruption strategies.
Results
90% of the participants who performed an NDRT deactivated the automation after 7 to 8 s. However, 90% of the same drivers looked at the side mirror for the first time only after 11 to 14 s. Drivers with office tasks either interrupted the tasks sequentially or in parallel. Strategies were not adapted to the take-over situation or the task but appeared to be due to individual preferences.
Conclusion
Drivers engaged in NDRTs may neglect lower priority subtasks after a TOR, such as mirror checking. Therefore, there is a need to go beyond measures of automation deactivation time to understand the transition to manual driving. Using analyses of attentional dynamics during take-over situations may enhance the safety of future car-driver handover assistance systems.
Application
If low driver availability is detected, TORs should only be used as a fallback option if sufficient time and adaptive driver support can be provided.
BraunagelC.RosenstielW.KasneciE. (2017). Ready for take-over? A new driver assistance system for an automated classification of driver take-over readiness. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, 9(4), 10–22.
2.
CarstenO.LaiF.BarnardY.JamsonA. H.MeratN. (2012). Control task substitution in semiautomated driving: Does it matter what aspects are automated?Human Factors, 54, 747–761.
3.
CyganskiR.FraedrichE.LenzB. (2015, January). Travel-time valuation for automated driving: A use-case-driven study. Proceedings of the 94th Annual Meeting of the TRB, Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
4.
de WinterJ. C.HappeeR.MartensM. H.StantonN. A. (2014). Effects of adaptive cruise control and highly automated driving on workload and situation awareness: A review of the empirical evidence. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 27, 196–217.
5.
FoxS.HoffmanM. (2002). Escalation behavior as a specific case of goal-directed activity: A persistence paradigm. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 273–285.
6.
GoldC.BerishaI.BenglerK. (2015). Utilization of drivetime—Performing non-driving related tasks while driving highly automated. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 1666–1670). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
7.
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 Annual Meeting (Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 1938–1942). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
8.
GoldC.KörberM.LechnerD.BenglerK. (2016). Taking over control from highly automated vehicles in complex traffic situations: The role of traffic density. Human Factors, 58, 642–652.
9.
GregoriadesA.SutcliffeA. (2018). Simulation-based evaluation of an in-vehicle smart situation awareness enhancement system. Ergonomics, 61, 947–965.
10.
HelldinT.FalkmanG.RiveiroM.DavidssonS. (2013). Presenting system uncertainty in automotive UIs for supporting trust calibration in autonomous driving. In TerkenJ.MartensM.MuellerC.HealyJ.OsswaldS. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 210–217). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
11.
HöftS.FunkeU. (2006). Simulationsorientierte verfahren der personalauswahl [Simulation oriented personnel selection procedures]. Lehrbuch Der Personalpsychologie, 2, 145–187.
12.
JamsonA. H.MeratN.CarstenO. M.LaiF. C. (2013). Behavioural changes in drivers experiencing highly-automated vehicle control in varying traffic conditions. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 30, 116–125.
13.
JaroschO.KuhntM.ParadiesS.BenglerK. (2017). It’s out of our hands now! Effects of non-driving related tasks during highly automated driving on drivers’ fatigue. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design (pp. 319–325). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
14.
JohnsonA. W.DudaK. R.SheridanT. B.OmanC. M. (2017). A closed-loop model of operator visual attention, situation awareness, and performance across automation mode transitions. Human Factors, 59, 229–241.
15.
KaberD. B.EndsleyM. 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, 126–131.
16.
KiddD. G.ReimerB.DobresJ.MehlerB. (2018). Changes in driver glance behavior when using a system that automates steering to perform a low-speed parallel parking maneuver. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 58, 629–639.
KyriakidisM.HappeeR.de WinterJ. C. (2015). Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 32, 127–140.
20.
LangeC. (2005, August). The development and usage of Dikablis (digital wireless gaze tracking system). Abstracts of the 13th European Conference on Eye Movements ECEM13, Bern, Switzerland.
21.
LargeD. R.CrundallE.BurnettG.HarveyC.KonstantopoulosP. (2016). Driving without wings: The effect of different digital mirror locations on the visual behaviour, performance and opinions of drivers. Applied Ergonomics, 55, 138–148.
22.
LeeJ. D. (2014). Dynamics of driver distraction: The process of engaging and disengaging. Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine, 58, 24–32.
23.
LiangK. Y.ZegerS. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73, 13–22.
24.
LienertG. A.SchulerH. (1994). Revidierter allgemeiner büroarbeitstest: ABAT-R: Handanweisung für die durchführung und auswertung [Revised general office work test: ABAT-R]. Boston, MA: Hogrefe.
25.
LouwT.KuoJ.RomanoR.RadhakrishnanV.LennéM. G.MeratN. (2019). Engaging in NDRTs affects drivers’ responses and glance patterns after silent automation failures. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 62, 870–882.
26.
LouwT.MadiganR.CarstenO.MeratN. (2017). Were they in the loop during automated driving? Links between visual attention and crash potential. Injury Prevention, 23, 281–286.
27.
LuZ.CosterX.de WinterJ. (2017). How much time do drivers need to obtain situation awareness? A laboratory-based study of automated driving. Applied Ergonomics, 60, 293–304.
28.
McDonaldA. D.AlambeigiH.EngströmJ.MarkkulaG.VogelpohlT.DunneJ.YumaN. (2019). Toward computational simulations of behavior during automated driving takeovers: A review of the empirical and modeling literatures. Human Factors, 61, 642–688.
29.
McEvoyS. P.StevensonM. R.WoodwardM. (2006). Phone use and crashes while driving: A representative survey of drivers in two Australian states. Medical Journal of Australia, 185, 630–634.
MeratN.JamsonA. H.LaiF. C.DalyM.CarstenO. M. (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.
32.
MeratN.SeppeltB.LouwT.EngströmJ.LeeJ. D.JohanssonE.. . . McGeheeD. (2019). The “out-of-the-loop” concept in automated driving: Proposed definition, measures and implications. Cognition, Technology & Work, 21, 87–98.
33.
MonsellS. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.
NaujoksF.MaiC.NeukumA. (2014). The effect of urgency of take-over requests during highly automated driving under distraction conditions. Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation, 7, Article 431.
36.
Petermann-StockI.HackenbergL.MuhrT.MerglC. (2013). 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 drive in a traffic jam]. 6. Tagung Fahrerassistenzsysteme. Der Weg zum automatischen Fahren.
37.
PflegingB.RangM.BroyN. (2016). Investigating user needs for non-driving-related activities during automated driving. In HäkkilaJ.OjalaT. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (pp. 91–99). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
38.
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 Annual Meeting (pp. 2063–2067). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
39.
SamuelS.BorowskyA.ZilbersteinS.FisherD. L. (2016). Minimum time to situation awareness in scenarios involving transfer of control from an automated driving suite. Transportation Research Record, 2602, 115–120.
40.
SkrypchukL.LangdonP.SawyerB. D.MouzakitisA.ClarksonP. J. (2018). Enabling multitasking by designing for situation awareness within the vehicle environment. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 20, 105–128.
41.
Society of Automotive Engineers. (2018). Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles (Surface Vehicle Information Report J3016_201806). Retrieved from https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_201806/
42.
SteckF.KolarovaV.Bahamonde-BirkeF.TrommerS.LenzB. (2018). How autonomous driving may affect the value of travel time savings for commuting. Transportation Research Record, 2672, 11–20.
43.
VogelpohlT.KühnM.HummelT.GehlertT.VollrathM. (2018). Transitioning to manual driving requires additional time after automation deactivation. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 55, 464–482.
44.
VogelpohlT.KühnM.HummelT.VollrathM. (2018). Asleep at the automated wheel—Sleepiness and fatigue during highly automated driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 126, 70–84.
45.
VollrathM.HuemerA. K.TellerC.LikhachevaA.FrickeJ. (2016). Do German drivers use their smartphones safely?—Not really!Accident Analysis & Prevention, 96, 29–38.
46.
WalchM.MühlK.KrausJ.StollT.BaumannM.WeberM. (2017). From car-driver-handovers to cooperative interfaces: Visions for driver-vehicle interaction in automated driving. In MeixnerG.MüllerC. (Eds.), Automotive user interfaces (pp. 273–294). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
47.
WandtnerB.SchömigN.SchmidtG. (2018). Secondary task engagement and disengagement in the context of highly automated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 58, 253–263.
48.
WeinbeerV.MuhrT.BenglerK. (2019). Automated driving: The potential of non-driving-related tasks to manage driver drowsiness. In BagnaraS.TartagliaR.AlbolinoS.AlexanderT.FujitaY. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) (Vol. 823, pp. 179–188). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
49.
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.
50.
ZeebK.BuchnerA.SchraufM. (2016). Is take-over time all that matters? The impact of visual-cognitive load on driver take-over quality after conditionally automated driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 92, 230–239.
51.
ZeebK.HärtelM.BuchnerA.SchraufM. (2017). Why is steering not the same as braking? The impact of non-driving related tasks on lateral and longitudinal driver interventions during conditionally automated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 50, 65–79.
52.
ZeigarnikB. (1938). On finished and unfinished tasks. In ElisW. D. (Ed.), A source book of Gestalt psychology (pp. 300–314). New York, NY: Harcourt.
53.
ZhangB.de WinterJ.VarottoS.HappeeR.MartensM. (2019). Determinants of take-over time from automated driving: A meta-analysis of 129 studies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 64, 285–307.
