The objective of this semi-controlled study was to investigate drivers’ performance when resuming control from an Automated Driving System (ADS), simulated through the Wizard of Oz method, in real traffic.
Background
Research on take-overs has primarily focused on urgent scenarios. This article aims to shift the focus to non-critical take-overs from a system operating in congested traffic situations.
Method
Twenty drivers drove a selected route in rush-hour traffic in the San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA. During the drive, the ADS became available when predetermined availability conditions were fulfilled. When the system was active, the drivers were free to engage in non-driving related activities.
Results
The results show that drivers’ transition time goes down with exposure, making it reasonable to assume that some experience is required to regain control with comfort and ease. The novel analysis of after-effects of automated driving on manual driving performance implies that the after-effects were close to negligible. Observational data indicate that, with exposure, a majority of the participants started to engage in non-driving related activities to some extent, but it is unclear how the activities influenced the take-over performance.
Conclusion
The results indicate that drivers need repeated exposure to take-overs to be able to fully resume manual control with ease.
Application
Take-over signals (e.g., visuals, sounds, and haptics) should be carefully designed to avoid startle effects and the human-machine interface should provide clear guidance on the required take-over actions.
BenglerK.OmozikK.MüllerA. I. (2020). The Renaissance of Wizard of Oz (WoOz) – Using the WoOz methodology to prototype automated vehicles. In de WaardD.ToffettiA.PietrantoniL.FrankeT.PetiotJ-F.DumasC.BotzerA.OnnaschL.MillevilleI.MarsF. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Europe Chapter 2019 Annual Conference (pp. 62–72). Downloaded fromhttp://hfes-europe.org. (ISSN 2333-4959).
2.
BerghöferF. L.PuruckerC.NaujoksF.WiedemannK.MarbergerC. (2018). Prediction of take-over time demand in conditionally automated driving – results of a real world driving study. In de WaardD.BrookhuisK.CoelhoD.FaircloughS.ManzeyD.NaumannA.OnnaschL.RöttgerS.ToffettiA.WiczorekR. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Europe Chapter 2018 Annual Conference (pp. 69–81). Downloaded from http://hfes-europe.org. ISSN 2333-4959
3.
BroströmR.RydströmA.KoppC. (2019). Drivers Quickly Trust Autonomous Cars. In AhramT.FalcãoC. (Eds.), Advances in Usability, User Experience and Assistive Technology (pp. 699–705). Springer.
4.
de WinterJ. C. F.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(Part B), 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.06.016
5.
de WinterJ. C. F.StantonN.EismaY. B. (2021). Is the take-over paradigm a mere convenience?Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 10, 100370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2021.100370
6.
DesmondP. A.HancockP. A.MonetteJ. L. (1998). Fatigue and automation-induced impairments in simulated driving performance. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1628(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.3141/1628-02
EkmanF.JohanssonM.BligårdL.-O.KarlssonM.StrömbergH. (2019). Exploring automated vehicle driving styles as a source of trust information. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 65, 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.07.026.
9.
ErikssonA.BanksV. A.StantonN. A. (2017). Transition to manual: Comparing simulator with on-road control transitions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 102, 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.03.011.
10.
ErikssonA.PetermeijerS. M.ZimmermannM.de WinterJ. C. F.BenglerK. J.StantonN. A. (2018). Rolling out the red (and green) carpet: Supporting driver decision making in automation-to-manual transitions. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 49(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2018.2883862.
11.
ErikssonA.StantonN. A. (2017a). Driving performance after self-regulated control transitions in highly automated vehicles. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 59(8), 1233–1248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817728774
12.
ErikssonA.StantonN. A. (2017b). Takeover time in highly automated vehicles: Noncritical transitions to and from manual control. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 59(4), 689–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816685832
13.
ForsterY.HergethS.NaujoksF.BeggiatoM.KremsJ. F.KeinathA. (2019). Learning to use automation: Behavioral changes in interaction with automated driving systems. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 62, 599–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.02.013
14.
FrisonA.-K.ForsterY.WintersbergerP.GeiselV.RienerA. (2020). Where we come from and where we are going: A systematic review of human factors research in driving automation. Applied Sciences, 10(24), 8914. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10248914
15.
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 Meeting57(1) (pp. 1938–1942). https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213571433.
16.
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(4), 642–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816634226.
17.
HabibovicA.AnderssonJ.NilssonM.LundgrenV. M.NilssonJ. (2016 June). Evaluating interactions with non-existing automated vehicles: three Wizard of Oz approaches. In 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) (pp. 32–37). IEEE.
18.
HollnagelE.WoodsD. D. (2005). Joint cognitive systems: Foundations of cognitive systems engineering. CRC Press.
19.
ISO 15007. (2020). Road vehicles – measurement and analysis of driver visual behaviour with respect to transport information and control systems.
20.
JanssenC. P.IqbalS. T.KunA. L.DonkerS. F. (2019). Interrupted by my car? Implications of interruption and interleaving research for automated vehicles. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 130, 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.07.004
21.
KircherK.ErikssonO.ForsmanÅ.VadebyA.AhlstromC. (2017). Design and analysis of semi-controlled studies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 46, 404–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.06.016
22.
KlingegårdM.AnderssonJ.HabibovicA.NilssonE.RydströmA. (2020). Drivers’ ability to engage in a non-driving related task while in automated driving mode in real traffic. IEEE Access.
23.
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: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 61(4), 642–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819829572
24.
MeratN.JamsonA. H.LaiF. C. H.CarstenO. (2012). Highly automated driving, secondary task performance, and driver state. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54(5), 762–771. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812442087
25.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.09.005
26.
NaujoksF.MaiC.NekumA. (2014, 19–23 July). The effect of urgency of take-over requests during highly automated driving under distracted conditions. [Paper presented] The 5th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics AHFE 2014, Krakow, Poland. 9781495120978.
27.
NaujoksF.PuruckerC.WiedemannK.MarbergerC. (2019). Noncritical state transitions during conditionally automated driving on german freeways: Effects of non-driving related tasks on takeover time and takeover quality. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 61(4), 596–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818824002.
28.
OmozikK.YangY.KuntermannI.HergethS.BenglerK. (2019). How long does it take to relax? Observation of driver behavior during real-world conditionally automated driving. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design (pp. 245–251). Driving Assessment Conference.
29.
OszK.RaatsK.ForsV.PinkS.LindgrenT. (2018). Combining WOz testing and ride along video ethnographies: advancing methodologies for autonomous driving car development for mixed traffic environment. In Proceedings of the 30th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (pp. 252–255). Association for Computing Machinery.
30.
OszK.RydströmA.ForsV.PinkS.BroströmR. (2018). Building collaborative test practices: Design ethnography and WOz in autonomous driving research. IxD&A, 37, 12–20.
31.
PaiG.WidrowS.RadadiyaJ.FitzpatrickC. D.KnodlerM.PradhanA. K. (2020). A Wizard-of-Oz experimental approach to study the human factors of automated vehicles: Platform and mathods evaluation. Traffic Injury Prevention.
32.
PeltzmanS. (1975). The effects of automobile safety regulation. Journal of Political Economy, 83(4), 677–725. https://doi.org/10.1086/260352
33.
RosenbloomP.NewellA. (1987). Learning by chunking: A production system model of practice. In KlahrD.LangleyP.NechesR. (Eds.), Production system models of learning and development (pp. 221–286). MIT Press.
34.
SAE. (2018). Taxonomy and Definitions for terms Related to driving automation Systems for on-road motor vehicles (J3016). SAE International.
35.
TanikawaC.UrabeY.MatsuoK.KuboM.TakahashiA.ItoH.TajimaK.KamataniN.NakamuraY.MatsudaK. (2012). A genome-wide association study identifies two susceptibility loci for duodenal ulcer in the Japanese population. Nature Genetics, 44(4), 430–434. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.1109
UNECE. (2020). Proposal for a new UN Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regards to Automated Lane Keeping System. Retrieved Mars 18, 2021, fromhttps://undocs.org/ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2020/81
38.
VictorT. W.TivestenE.GustavssonP.JohanssonJ.SangbergF.Ljung AustM. (2018). Automation expectation mismatch: incorrect prediction despite eyes on threat and hands on wheel. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 60(8), 1095–1116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818788164.
39.
WeaverB. W.DeLuciaP. R. (2020). A systematic review and meta-analysis of takeover performance during conditionally automated driving. Human Factors.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.02.023.
42.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.04.020
