This study aims to quantify the impact of olfactory stimulation and takeover modality on the performance of takeovers in conditionally automated driving.
Background
Takeover requests are important for the safety of automated vehicles. The reaction time and subsequent performance of drivers in the takeover process are crucial for safety. In this study, peppermint was adopted as an auxiliary modality to the tactile and auditory design of takeover requests.
Methods
Sixty participants took part in the experiment, which required participants to avoid a stalled vehicle after they were awoken from a state of light sleep by a takeover request. Takeover modality (tactile, auditory, and combined) was the within-subjects factor. In the between-subjects design, half of the participants received a peppermint odor stimulation when the takeover request occurred, and the other half received a placebo (air).
Results
The presence of peppermint odor did not influence the reaction time, but participants did show signs of being more alert afterwards. For the moment of takeover, use of the auditory modality had a significant positive effect on reaction time compared to the tactile conditions.
Conclusion
Peppermint odor had a positive impact on drivers’ takeover quality when engaged in nondriving-related activities such as light sleep, and the takeover request modalities were shown to be crucial for a safe and successful takeover.
Application
The results will be useful as a reference for developers of automated driving systems to design human–machine interfaces, shorten the driver’s reaction time, and improve takeover quality.
BarkerS.GrayhemP.KoonJ.PerkinsJ.WhalenA.RaudenbushB. (2003). Improved performance on clerical tasks associated with administration of peppermint odor. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 97, 1007–1010.doi:10.2466/pms.2003.97.3.100714738372
2.
FeldhütterA.GoldC.SchneiderS.BenglerK. (2016). How the duration of automated driving influences take-over performance and gaze behavior. Kongress der gesellschaft für arbeitswissenschaft, 62, 309–318.
3.
ForsterY.NaujoksF.NeukumA.HuesteggeL. (2017). Driver compliance to take-over requests with different auditory outputs in conditional automation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 109, 18–28.doi:10.1016/j.aap.2017.09.01928992451
4.
GoldC.BenglerK. (2014). Taking over control from highly automated vehicles. Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation: Part II, 8, 64.
5.
GoldC.BerishaI.BenglerK. (2015). Utilization of drivetime – performing non-driving related tasks while driving highly automated (Vol. 59, pp. 1666–1670) [Paper presentation]. The Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 59th Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, CA.doi:10.1177/1541931215591360
6.
GoldC.DamböckD.LorenzL.BenglerK. (2013). Take over! How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop? Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (pp. 1938–1942), Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.doi:10.1177/1541931213571433
7.
GoldC.KörberM.LechnerD.BenglerK. (2016). Taking over control from highly automated vehicles in complex traffic situations. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 58, 642–652.doi:10.1177/0018720816634226
JaroschO.BellemH.BenglerK. (2019). Effects of task-induced fatigue in prolonged conditional automated driving. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 61, 1186–1199.doi:10.1177/0018720818816226
11.
KlemmW. R.LutesS. D.HendrixD.WarrenburgS. (1992). Topographical EEG maps of human responses to odors. Chemical Senses, 17, 347–361.doi:10.1093/chemse/17.3.347
12.
KobalG.HummelC. (1988). Cerebral chemosensory evoked potentials elicited by chemical stimulation of the human olfactory and respiratory nasal mucosa. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section, 71, 241–250.doi:10.1016/0168-5597(88)90023-8
13.
KörberM.WeißgerberT.BlaschkeC.FaridM.KalbL. (2015). Prediction of take-over time in highly automated driving by two psychometric tests. DYNA, 82, 195–201.doi:10.15446/dyna.v82n193.53496
14.
KyriakidisM.HappeeR.de WinterJ. C. F. (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.doi:10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.014
15.
LouwT.MeratN. (2017). Are you in the loop? Using gaze dispersion to understand driver visual attention during vehicle automation. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 76, 35–50.doi:10.1016/j.trc.2017.01.001
16.
LvC.CaoD.ZhaoY.AugerD. J.SullmanM.WangH.DutkaL. M.SkrypchukL.MouzakitisA. (2018). Analysis of autopilot disengagements occurring during autonomous vehicle testing. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 5, 58–68.doi:10.1109/JAS.2017.7510745
17.
LvC.WangH.CaoD.ZhaoY.AugerD. J.SullmanM.MatthiasR.SkrypchukL.MouzakitisA. (2018). Characterization of driver neuromuscular dynamics for human–automation collaboration design of automated vehicles. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 23, 2558–2567.doi:10.1109/TMECH.2018.2812643
18.
MahachandraM.Yassierli.GarnabyE. D. (2015). The effectiveness of in-vehicle peppermint fragrance to maintain car driver's alertness. Procedia Manufacturing, 4, 471–477.doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.11.064
MillerD.SunA.JohnsM.IveH.SirkinD.AichS.JuW. (2015). Distraction becomes engagement in automated driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 59, 1676–1680.doi:10.1177/1541931215591362
22.
MillotJ. L.BrandG.MorandN. (2002). Effects of ambient odors on reaction time in humans. Neuroscience Letters, 322(2), 79–82.doi:10.1016/S0304-3940(02)00092-7
23.
MustafaM.RustamN.SiranR. (2016). The impact of vehicle fragrance on driving performance: What do we know?Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 222, 807–815.doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.173
24.
NakajimaY.TanakaK. (2017). Effects of active and passive secondary tasks in a take-over situation during automated driving (pp. 1161–1166) [Conference session]. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Banff Center, Banff, Canada: IEEE.
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.
NorrishM. I. K.DwyerK. L. (2005). Preliminary investigation of the effect of peppermint oil on an objective measure of daytime sleepiness. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 55, 291–298.doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2004.08.004
27.
PetermeijerS.BazilinskyyP.BenglerK.de WinterJ. (2017). Take-over again: Investigating multimodal and directional TORS to get the driver back into the loop. Applied Ergonomics, 62, 204–215.doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2017.02.023
28.
PetermeijerS.DoubekF.de WinterJ. (2017). Driver response times to auditory, visual, and tactile take-over requests: A simulator study with 101 participants [Conference session]. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1505–1510.
29.
PetermeijerS. M.CielerS.de WinterJ. C. F. (2017). Comparing spatially static and dynamic vibrotactile take-over requests in the driver seat. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 99, 218–227.doi:10.1016/j.aap.2016.12.001
30.
PetermeijerS. M.de WinterJ. C. F.BenglerK. J. (2016). Vibrotactile displays: A survey with a view on highly automated driving. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 17, 897–907. doi:10.1109/TITS.2015.2494873
31.
PflegingB.RangM.BroyN. (2016). Investigating user needs for non-driving-related activities during automated driving [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (pp. 91–99).
32.
PiotrowskiZ.SzypulskaM. (2017). Classification of falling asleep states using HRV analysis. Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, 37, 290–301.doi:10.1016/j.bbe.2017.02.003
33.
PolitisI. (2014). The effects of modality, urgency and message content on responses to multimodal driver displays [Conference session]. Adjunct Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications.
34.
PolitisI.BrewsterS.PollickF. (2017). Using multimodal displays to signify critical handovers of control to distracted autonomous CAR drivers. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction, 9, 1–16.doi:10.4018/ijmhci.2017070101
35.
RadlmayrJ.GoldC.LorenzL.FaridM.BenglerK. (2014). How traffic situations and non-driving related tasks affect the take-over quality in highly automated driving [Conference session]. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting (Vol. 58, pp.2063–2067). Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.doi:10.1177/1541931214581434
36.
RaudenbushB.MeyerB.EppichB. (2002). The effects of odors on objective and subjective measures of athletic performance. International Sports Journal, 6, 14–27.
37.
RaudenbushG.GrayhemR.SearsT.WilsonI. (2009). Effects of peppermint and cinnamon odor administration on simulated driving alertness, mood and workload. North American Journal of Psychology, 11, 245–256.
38.
SAE International. (2016). Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles (Technical Report No. J3016). SAE On-Road Automated Vehicles Standards Committee.
39.
SaxbyD. J.MatthewsG.WarmJ. S.HitchcockE. M.NeubauerC. (2013). Active and passive fatigue in simulated driving: Discriminating styles of workload regulation and their safety impacts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 287–300.doi:10.1037/a0034386
40.
SchömigN.HarguttV.NeukumA.Petermann-StockI.OthersenI. (2015). The interaction between highly automated driving and the development of drowsiness. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 6652–6659.doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.11.005
41.
TalamontiW. J. (2017). Human-machine interface development for modifying driver lane change behavior in manual, automated, and shared control automated driving. Wayne State University Dissertations. 1747. https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations/ 1747
42.
UmezuT.SakataA.ItoH. (2001). Ambulation-promoting effect of peppermint oil and identification of its active constituents. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 69, 383–390.doi:10.1016/S0091-3057(01)00543-3
43.
VogelpohlT.KühnM.HummelT.VollrathM. (2019). Asleep at the automated wheel—Sleepiness and fatigue during highly automated driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 126, 70–84.doi:10.1016/j.aap.2018.03.013
44.
WandtnerB.SchömigN.SchmidtG. (2018). Effects of non-driving related task modalities on takeover performance in highly automated driving. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 60, 870–881.doi:10.1177/0018720818768199
45.
WangF. Y. (2016). Control 5.0: From Newton to Merton in Popper's cyber-social-physical spaces. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 3, 233–234.
46.
XingY.LvC.CaoD.WangH.ZhaoY. (2018). Driver workload estimation using a novel hybrid method of error reduction ratio causality and support vector machine. Measurement, 114, 390–397.doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2017.10.002
47.
XingY.LvC.ZhangZ.WangH.NaX.CaoD.VelenisE.WangF. Y. (2017). Identification and analysis of driver postures for in-vehicle driving activities and secondary tasks recognition. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 5, 95–108.doi:10.1109/TCSS.2017.2766884
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
49.
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.doi:10.1016/j.aap.2016.04.002
50.
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.doi:10.1016/j.trf.2017.07.008
