The paper aimed to investigate glance behaviors under different levels of distraction in automated driving (AD) and understand the impact of distraction levels on driver takeover performance.
Background
Driver distraction detrimentally affects takeover performance. Glance-based distraction measurement could be a promising method to remind drivers to maintain enough attentiveness before the takeover request in partially AD.
Method
Thirty-six participants were recruited to drive a Tesla Model S in manual and Autopilot modes on a test track while engaging in secondary tasks, including temperature-control, email-sorting, and music-selection, to impose low and high distractions. During the test drive, participants needed to quickly change the lane as if avoiding an immediate road hazard if they heard an unexpected takeover request (an auditory warning). Driver state and behavior over the test drive were recorded in real time by a driver monitoring system and several other sensors installed in the Tesla vehicle.
Results
The distribution of off-road glance duration was heavily skewed (with a long tail) by high distractions, with extreme glance duration more than 30 s. Moreover, being eyes-off-road before takeover could cause more delay in the urgent takeover reaction compared to being hands-off-wheel.
Conclusion
The study measured off-road glance duration under different levels of distraction and demonstrated the impacts of being eyes-off-road and hands-off-wheel on the following takeover performance.
Application
The findings provide new insights about engagement in Level 2 AD and are useful for the design of driver monitoring technologies for distraction management.
BanksV. A.ErikssonA.O’DonoghueJ.StantonN. A. (2018). Is partially automated driving a bad idea? Observations from an on-road study. Applied Ergonomics, 68, 138–145.doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2017.11.010http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29409628
4.
BazilinskyyP.PetermeijerS. M.PetrovychV.DodouD.de WinterJ. C. F. (2018). Take-over requests in highly automated driving: A crowdsourcing survey on auditory, vibrotactile, and visual displays. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 56, 82–98.doi:10.1016/j.trf.2018.04.001
5.
CarstenO.LaiF. C. H.BarnardY.JamsonA. H.MeratN. (2012). Control task substitution in semiautomated driving: Does it matter what aspects are automated?Human Factors, 54, 747–761.doi:10.1177/0018720812460246http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23156620
6.
Cohen-LazryG.BorowskyA.Oron-GiladT. (2017). The effects of continuous driving-related feedback on drivers’ response to automation failures. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 61, 1980–1984.doi:10.1177/1541931213601974
7.
DinparastDjadidA.LeeJ. D.DomeyerJ.SchwarzC.BrownT. L.GunaratneP. (2019). Designing for the extremes: Modeling drivers’ response time to take back control from automation using Bayesian quantile regression. Human Factors, 0018720819893429.
8.
ErikssonA.StantonN. A. (2017). Takeover time in highly automated vehicles: Noncritical transitions to and from manual control. Human Factors, 59, 689–705.doi:10.1177/0018720816685832http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28124573
9.
GeraciM. (2014). Linear quantile mixed models: The lqmm package for Laplace quantile regression. Journal of Statistical Software, 57, 1–29.doi:10.18637/jss.v057.i13
10.
GibsonM.LeeJ.VenkatramanV.PriceM.LewisJ.MontgomeryO.MutluB.DomeyerJ.FoleyJ. (2016). Situation awareness, scenarios, and secondary tasks: Measuring driver performance and safety margins in highly automated vehicles. SAE International Journal of Connected and Automated Vehicles, 1, 33–40.
11.
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, 57, 1938–1942.doi:10.1177/1541931213571433
12.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139–183.
KlauerS. G.GuoF.Simons-MortonB. G.OuimetM. C.LeeS. E.DingusT. A. (2014). Distracted driving and risk of road crashes among novice and experienced drivers. New England Journal of Medicine, 370, 54–59.doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1204142http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24382065
KoenkerR.HallockK. F. (2001). Quantile regression. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15, 143–156.doi:10.1257/jep.15.4.143
17.
LikertR. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22, 1–55.
18.
LiuS.-Y.LeeJ. D.LeeJ. Y.VenkatramanV. (2018). Glances that matter: Applying quantile regression to assess driver distraction from off-road glances. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62, 1954–1958.doi:10.1177/1541931218621443
19.
LouwT.MeratN.JamsonH. (2015, June 22–25). Engaging with highly automated driving: To be or not to be in the loop? In Proceedings of the 8th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design [Symposium]. Salt Lake City, UT, United States.
20.
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.doi:10.1177/0018720819829572http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30830804
21.
McDonaldA. D.FerrisT. K.WienerT. A. (2019). Classification of driver distraction: A comprehensive analysis of feature generation, machine learning, and input measures. Human Factors, Advance online publication.doi:10.1177/0018720819856454http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31237788
22.
Mitsopoulos-RubensE.TrotterM. J.LennéM. G. (2011). Effects on driving performance of interacting with an in-vehicle music player: A comparison of three interface layout concepts for information presentation. Applied Ergonomics, 42, 583–591.doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2010.08.017http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20869694
23.
MorandoA.VictorT.DozzaM. (2018). A reference model for driver attention in automation: Glance behavior changes during lateral and longitudinal assistance. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 20, 2999–3009.doi:10.1109/TITS.2018.2870909
RadlmayrJ.BrüchK.SchmidtK.SolbeckC.WehnerT. (2018). Peripheral monitoring of traffic in conditionally automated driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62, 1828–1832.doi:10.1177/1541931218621416
26.
RadlmayrJ.GoldC.LorenzL.FaridM.BenglerK. (2014). How traffic situations and non-driving related tasks affect the take-over quality in highly automated driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 58, 2063–2067.doi:10.1177/1541931214581434
27.
RadwinR. G.LeeJ. D.AkkasO. (2017). Driver movement patterns indicate distraction and engagement. Human Factors, 59, 844–860.doi:10.1177/0018720817696496http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28704631
28.
ReimerB.PettinatoA.FridmanL.LeeJ.MehlerB.SeppeltB.ParkJ.IagnemmaK. (2016). Behavioral impact of drivers’ roles in automated driving [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
29.
VictorT.DozzaM.BärgmanJ.BodaC.EngströmJ.FlannaganC.MarkkulaG. (2015). Analysis of naturalistic driving study data: Safer glances, driver inattention, and crash risk. Transportation Research Board.
30.
VictorT. W.HarblukJ. L.EngströmJ. A. (2005). Sensitivity of eye-movement measures to in-vehicle task difficulty. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8, 167–190.doi:10.1016/j.trf.2005.04.014
31.
VictorT. W.TivestenE.GustavssonP.JohanssonJ.SangbergF.Ljung AustM. (2018). Automation expectation mismatch: Incorrect prediction despite eyes on threat and hands on wheel. Human Factors, 60, 1095–1116.doi:10.1177/0018720818788164http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30096002
32.
YangS.KuoJ.LennéM. G. (2018). Analysis of gaze behavior to measure cognitive distraction in real-world driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62, 1944–1948.doi:10.1177/1541931218621441
33.
YangS.KuoJ.LennéM. G. (2019). Patterns of sequential off-road glances indicate levels of distraction in automated driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63, 2056–2060.doi:10.1177/1071181319631204
34.
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.2016.04.002http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27107472
