Enhancing Takeover Performance in Autonomous Vehicles Through Augmented Highlighting Displays

Abstract

Objective

This study aims to introduce a novel augmented display technology that enhances visibility of forward vehicles by projecting critical highlighting information onto the windshield, and to validate its effectiveness in improving occupants’ reaction, acceptance, and workload.

Background

The rapid advancements in autonomous driving technology have brought significant changes to the automotive landscape; however, trust and safety concerns remain major barriers to widespread acceptance. To address these issues, enhancing occupants’ reaction efficiency with workload and acceptance in autonomous vehicle operations is critical.

Method

Utilizing two distinct highlighting display methods—surface and outline—within a virtual reality simulation, the research examines their effects on occupants’ acceptance including perception of safety through AVAM (Autonomous vehicle acceptance model), and workload through NASA-TLX to dynamic road scenarios during autonomous driving.

Results

The findings reveal that highlighting display significantly enhances acceptance and workload with reaction time, but their effectiveness varies. Surface highlighting was found to better reduce anxiety and increase perceived safety, while outline highlighting more effectively reduced mental demand.

Conclusion

These results offer valuable insights into the dynamic interaction between advanced display technologies and autonomous vehicle operations, highlighting the potential benefits and challenges in their implementation to foster broader acceptance of autonomous vehicles.

Application

By intuitively projecting critical information during takeover scenarios, this technology addresses trust and safety barriers in autonomous driving, potentially enhancing prompt responses, accelerating autonomous vehicle integration, and improving the overall driving experience.

Keywords

autonomous driving information processing mental workload simulation and virtual reality virtual environments

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brooke

(1996). Sus: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 189(194), 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781498710411-35

Deniaud

Honnet

Jeanne

Mestre

(2015). An investigation into physiological responses in driving simulators: An objective measurement of presence. In: 2015 Science and Information Conference (SAI), London, UK, 28–30 July, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/sai.2015.7237225

Dogan

Honnêt

Masfrand

Guillaume

(2019). Effects of non-driving-related tasks on takeover performance in different takeover situations in conditionally automated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 62, 494–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.02.010

Evans

K. K.

Horowitz

T. S.

Howe

Pedersini

Reijnen

Pinto

Kuzmova

Wolfe

J. M.

(2011). Visual attention. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews, 2(5), 503–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.127

Gechter

Contet

J.-M.

Galland

Lamotte

Koukam

(2012). Virtual intelligent vehicle urban simulator: Application to vehicle platoon evaluation. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 24, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2012.02.001

Gish

K. W.

Staplin

Stewart

Perel

(1999). Sensory and cognitive factors affecting automotive head-up display effectiveness. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1694(1), 10–19. https://doi.org/10.3141/1694-02

Hewitt

Politis

Amanatidis

Sarkar

(2019). Assessing public perception of self-driving cars. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Marina del Ray, CA, USA, 17–20 March, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301275.3302268

Horrey

W. J.

Wickens

C. D.

(2004). Driving and side task performance: The effects of display clutter, separation, and modality. Human Factors, 46(4), 611–624. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.4.611.56805

Körber

Prasch

Bengler

(2017). Why do I have to drive now? Post hoc explanations of takeover requests. Human Factors, 60(3), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817747730

10.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A.

(2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392

11.

Coster

de Winter

(2017). How much time do drivers need to obtain situation awareness? A laboratory-based study of automated driving. Applied Ergonomics, 60, 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.12.003

12.

McMahan

R. P.

Bowman

D. A.

Zielinski

D. J.

Brady

R. B.

(2012). Evaluating display fidelity and interaction fidelity in a virtual reality game. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(4), 626–633. https://doi.org/10.1109/tvcg.2012.43

13.

Milleville-Pennel

Charron

(2015). Driving for real or on a fixed-base simulator: Is it so different? An explorative study. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 24(1), 74–91. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres_a_00216

14.

Molnar

L. J.

Ryan

L. H.

Pradhan

A. K.

Eby

D. W.

St Louis

R. M.

Zakrajsek

J. S.

(2018). Understanding trust and acceptance of automated vehicles: An exploratory simulator study of transfer of control between automated and manual driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 58, 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.06.004

15.

Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, No. 1464 . (2025). Performance and standard for motor vehicle or motor vehicle parts regulation (ministerial decree of land, infrastructure and transport No. 1464). Korean Law Information Center. https://www.law.go.kr/lsSc.do?menuId=1&subMenuId=15&tabMenuId=81&query=%EC%9E%90%EB%8F%99%EC%B0%A8%_EB%B0%8F%_EC%9E%90%EB%8F%99%EC%B0%A8%EB%B6%80%ED%92%88%EC%9D%98%_EC%84%B1%EB%8A%A5%EA%B3%BC%_EA%B8%B0%EC%A4%80%EC%97%90%_EA%B4%80%ED%95%9C%_EA%B7%9C%EC%B9%99#undefined

16.

Otten

Schrepp

Thomaschewski

(2020). Visual clarity as mediator between usability and aesthetics. In: Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2020, New York, NY, 6–9 September, 2020.

17.

Panagiotopoulos

Dimitrakopoulos

(2018). An empirical investigation on consumers’ intentions towards autonomous driving. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 95, 773–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.08.013

18.

Park

(2009). The influence of movement direction on visual attention in stereoscopic images. Journal of Digital Design, 9(2), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.17280/jdd.2009.9.2.022

19.

Park

(2010). The influence of depth on visual attention in stereoscopic images. Journal of Digital Design, 10(2), 441–450. https://doi.org/10.17280/jdd.2010.10.2.043

20.

Politis

Brewster

Pollick

(2015). Language-based multimodal displays for the handover of control in autonomous cars. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications, Nottingham, UK, 1–3 September, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1145/2799250.2799262

21.

Sadigh

Driggs-Campbell

Bajcsy

Sastry

S. S.

Seshia

(2014). User interface design and verification for semi-autonomous driving. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on high confidence networked systems, Berlin Germany, 15–17 April, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1145/2566468.2576851

22.

Schultheis

M. T.

Rebimbas

Mourant

Millis

S. R.

(2007). Examining the usability of a virtual reality driving simulator. Assistive Technology: The Official Journal of RESNA, 19(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2007.10131860

23.

Stanton

N. A.

Salmon

P. M.

Walker

G. H.

Jenkins

D. P.

(Eds.), (2017). Cognitive work analysis: Applications, extensions and future directions. CRC Press.

24.

Tsimhoni

Green

(2001). Visual demand of driving and the execution of display-intensive in-vehicle tasks. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 45(23), 1586–1590. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120104502305

25.

Wickens

C. D.

(1984). Processing resources in attention. In Parasuraman

Davies

D. R.

(Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–102). Academic Press.

26.

Wickens

C. D.

(2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220210123806

27.

Wickens

C. D.

Carswell

C. M.

(1995). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(3), 473–494. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049408

28.

Wickens

C. D.

Hollands

J. G.

(2000). Engineering psychology and human performance. Prentice Hall.

29.

Yuen

K. F.

Wong

Y. D.

Wang

(2020). The determinants of public acceptance of autonomous vehicles: An innovation diffusion perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 270, 121904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121904