Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026
With a Little Help From My Car: Sharing Automated Vehicle’s Situation Awareness Reduces Driver-Initiated Automation Disengagement Without Delaying Takeover Response Time
This study investigated the effect of sharing vehicle situation awareness (VSA) on driver takeover behavior in complex urban environments.
Background
As automated vehicles (AV) expand their operational design domain, little is known about driver interactions with driving automation in complex urban settings. Drivers often become either overly reliant on automation or fail to rely on it even when capable, leading to misuse or disuse. Sharing VSA information could enhance drivers’ awareness of the AV system and response when AVs request manual control in complex situations.
Methods
A driving simulator tested sharing VSA information via augmented reality head-up displays (AR HUDs) during takeover scenarios. Participants were assigned to control or experimental groups that received different combinations of VSA elements: perception (object highlighting), comprehension (confidence assessment), and projection (trajectory information). Two urban driving scenarios (parking lane and intersection) were tested.
Results
Sharing VSA information reduced driver-initiated automation disengagement before takeover requests without delaying response times. Perception information alone showed no significant difference from baseline, but adding egocentric projection information significantly reduced driver-initiated overrides, while allocentric projection did not. Adding confidence assessment further enhanced effectiveness. The parking lane scenario was associated with quicker responses, fewer full takeovers, and softer braking.
Conclusion
Specific combinations of VSA information reduced driver-initiated disengagement from automation without compromising response times. The type and presentation of shared information significantly affect human-automation interaction.
Application
These findings can guide the design of AV systems that better support driver-vehicle interaction in complex urban environments.
AckermanK.XargayE.TalleurD. A.CarbonariR. S.KirlikA.HovakimyanN.GregoryI. M.BelcastroC. M.TrujilloA.SeefeldtB. D. (2015). Flight envelope information-augmented display for enhanced pilot situational awareness. AIAA Infotech @ Aerospace. AIAA Infotech @ Aerospace, Kissimmee, FL, 5 January 2015. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-1112
2.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
3.
BellerJ.HeesenM.VollrathM. (2013). Improving the driver–automation interaction: An approach using automation uncertainty. Human Factors, 55(6), 1130–1141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813482327
4.
BenglerK.GötzeM.PfannmüllerL.ZaindlA. (2015). To see or not to see: Innovative display technologies as enablers for ergonomic cockpit concepts. In Proceedings of the Electronic Displays Conference (Nuremberg, Germany).
5.
BürknerP.-C. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01
6.
CampbellJ. L.BrownJ. L.GravingJ. S.RichardC. M.LichtyM. G.SanquistT.BaconP.WoodsR.LiH.WilliamsD. N.MorganJ. F. (2016). Human factors design guidance for driver-vehicle interfaces (Report No. DOT HS 812 360). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
7.
CarstenO.MartensM. H. (2019). How can humans understand their automated cars? HMI principles, problems and solutions. Cognition, Technology & Work, 21(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0484-0
8.
CasnerS. M.HutchinsE. L.NormanD. (2016). The challenges of partially automated driving. Communications of the ACM, 59(5), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/2830565
9.
ColleyM.GrulerL.WoideM.RukzioE. (2021). Investigating the design of information presentation in take-over requests in automated vehicles. Proceedings of MobileHCI 2021 - ACM international conference on mobile human-computer interaction: Mobile apart, mobile together, Toulouse & Virtual, France, 27 September 2021. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447526.3472025
10.
DamböckD.WeißgerberT.KienleM.BenglerK. (2012). Evaluation of a contact analog head-up display for highly automated driving. 4th international conference on applied human factors and ergonomics, San Francisco, CA, 2012.
11.
Dönmez ÖzkanY.MirnigA. G.MeschtscherjakovA.DemirC.TscheligiM. (2021). Mode awareness interfaces in automated vehicles, robotics, and aviation: A literature review. 13th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications, pp. 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1145/3409118.3475125
12.
DrükeJ.SemmlerC.BendewaldL. (2018). The “HMI tool kit” as a strategy for the systematic derivation of user-oriented HMI concepts of driver assistance systems in urban areas. Springer.
13.
DuN.ZhouF.TilburyD. M.RobertL. P.YangX. J. (2024). Behavioral and physiological responses to takeovers in different scenarios during conditionally automated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 101, 320–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2024.01.008
EndsleyM. R. (2017). From here to autonomy: Lessons learned from human–automation research. Human Factors, 59(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816681350
16.
FeierleA.BellerD.BenglerK. (2019). Head-Up displays in urban partially automated driving: Effects of using augmented reality. 2019 IEEE intelligent transportation systems conference, ITSC 2019, Auckland, New Zealand, 27–30 October 2019, pp. 1877–1882. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2019.8917472
17.
FrisonA. K.LiuT.WintersbergerP.RienerA. (2019). Why do you like to drive automated? A context-dependent analysis of highly automated driving to elaborate requirements for intelligent user interfaces. International conference on intelligent user interfaces, proceedings IUI, part F1476, Marina del Ray, CA, 17 March 2019, pp. 528–537. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301275.3302331
18.
GasparJ.CarneyC. (2019). The effect of partial automation on driver attention: A naturalistic driving study. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 61(8), 1261–1276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819836310
19.
GhoriO.MackowiakR.BautistaM.BeuterN.DrumondL.DiegoF.OmmerB. (2018). Learning to forecast pedestrian intention from pose dynamics. In IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) (pp. 1277–1284). Changshu, China: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2018.8500657 [Accessed 2018].
20.
HelldinT.FalkmanG.RiveiroM.DavidssonS. (2013). Presenting system uncertainty in automotive UIs for supporting trust calibration in autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 210–217). https://doi.org/10.1145/2516540.2516554
21.
IsraelB.SeitzM.BubbH.SennerB.KhalidH.HedgeA.AhramT. Z. (2010). Contact analog information in the head up display: How much information supports the driver? In Advances in ergonomics modeling and usability evaluation. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/EBK1439835036-20
22.
KleinG.WoodsD. D.BradshawJ. M.HoffmanR. R.FeltovichP. J. (2004). Ten challenges for making automation a “team player” in joint human-agent activity. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 19(06), 91–95. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2004.74
23.
KooJ.KwacJ.JuW.SteinertM.LeiferL.NassC. (2015). Why did my car just do that? Explaining semi-autonomous driving actions to improve driver understanding, trust, and performance. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 9(4), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-014-0227-2
24.
KunzeA.SummerskillS. J.MarshallR.FiltnessA. J. (2019). Automation transparency: Implications of uncertainty communication for human-automation interaction and interfaces. Ergonomics, 62(3), 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2018.1547842
25.
LeeJ.LeeJ. R.KoenigM. L.DouglasJ. R.DomeyerJ. E.LeeJ. D.ToyodaH. (2022). Incorporating driver expectations into a taxonomy of transfers of control for automated vehicles. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 340–344). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181322661241
26.
LeeJ. D.LiuS. Y.DomeyerJ.DinparastDjadidA. (2021). Assessing drivers’ trust of automated vehicle driving styles with a two-part mixed model of intervention tendency and magnitude. Human factors, 63(2), 197–209.
27.
LeeJ.RheemH.LeeJ. D.SzczerbaJ. F.RajavenkatanarayananA.MathieuR. (2023). Sharing vehicle situation awareness reduces driver-initiated overrides in urban environments. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 67(1), 21695067231195827. https://doi.org/10.1177/21695067231195827
28.
LeeJ.RheemH.LeeJ. D.SzczerbaJ. F.TsimhoniO. (2022). Teaming with your car: Redefining the driver–automation relationship in highly automated vehicles. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 17(1), 155534342211326–155534342211374. https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434221132636
LindemannP.LeeT.-Y.RigollG. (2018). Catch my drift: Elevating situation awareness for highly automated driving with an explanatory windshield display user interface. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2(4), 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2040071
31.
LuZ.HappeeR.CabrallC. D. D.KyriakidisM.de WinterJ. C. F. (2016). Human factors of transitions in automated driving: A general framework and literature survey. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 43, 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.10.007
32.
MaggiD.RomanoR.CarstenO.WinterJ. C. F. D. (2022). When terminology hinders research: The colloquialisms of transitions of control in automated driving. Cognition, Technology & Work, 24(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-022-00705-3
33.
MahajanK.LargeD. R.BurnettG.VelagaN. R. (2021). Exploring the benefits of conversing with a digital voice assistant during automated driving: A parametric duration model of takeover time. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 80, 104–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.03.012
34.
MorandoA.GershonP.MehlerB.ReimerB. (2020). Driver-initiated tesla autopilot disengagements in naturalistic driving. 12th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications, Virtual Event, DC, 20 September 2020, pp. 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1145/3409120.3410644
PfannmüllerL.KramerM.SennerB.BenglerK. (2015). A comparison of display concepts for a navigation system in an automotive contact analog head-up display. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 2722–2729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.678
37.
RittgerL.GötzeM. (2018). HMI strategy: Recommended action. In BenglerK.DrükeJ.HoffmannS.ManstettenD.NeukumA. (Eds.), UR:BAN human factors in traffic. Springer Vieweg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-15418-9_7
38.
RuschM. L.SchallM. C.GavinP.LeeJ. D.DawsonJ. D.VeceraS.RizzoM. (2013). Directing driver attention with augmented reality cues. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 16, 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2012.08.007
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(1), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.3141/2602-14
40.
SchuetS.LombaertsT.AcostaD.KaneshigeJ.WheelerK.ShishK. (2017). Autonomous flight envelope estimation for loss-of-control prevention. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 40(4), 847–862. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G001729
41.
StapelJ.El HassnaouiM.HappeeR. (2022). Measuring driver perception: Combining eye-tracking and automated road scene perception. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 64(4), 714–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820959958
42.
SwainR.KayeS.-A.RakotonirainyA. (2024). Shared intention and shared awareness for conditional automated driving: An online, randomized video experiment. Traffic Injury Prevention, 1–9(4), 398–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2024.2421215
43.
Van PaassenM. M.BorstC.EllerbroekJ.MulderM.FlachJ. M. (2018). Ecological interface design for vehicle locomotion control. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 48(5), 541–555. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2018.2860601
44.
VehtariA.GelmanA.GabryJ. (2017). Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and Computing, 27(5), 1413–1432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-016-9696-4
45.
WickhamH.AverickM.BryanJ.ChangW.McGowanL.FrançoisR.GrolemundG.HayesA.HenryL.HesterJ.KuhnM.PedersenT.MillerE.BacheS.MüllerK.OomsJ.RobinsonD.SeidelD.SpinuV.YutaniH. (2019). Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
46.
WintersbergerP.von SawitzkyT.FrisonA. K.RienerA. (2017). Traffic augmentation as a means to increase trust in automated driving systems. In Proceedings of the 12th Biannual Conference of the Italian SIGCHI Chapter.https://doi.org/10.1145/3125571.3125600
