Exploring the influence of secondary task immersion duration on the take-over process is an important task in the research on conditional automated driving (SAE, L3). In this paper, with the tool of driving simulation, two different secondary task types and take-over request (TOR) times were designed for the ramp area take-over scenario. Forty-two participants were recruited to conduct driving simulation experiments. Based on the K-means algorithm, different immersion durations of secondary tasks were clustered. Three driving indicators, namely speed, lateral offset, and accelerator pedal depth, were selected to characterize the take-over performance. Then the influence of immersion duration on the take-over response time and take-over performance was analyzed. The effect of different immersion durations on the section traffic operation during the take-over process was then investigated with the help of VISSIM software. The results showed that the TOR time had no significant effect on the take-over response time, and the take-over response time was positively correlated with the immersion duration. At the beginning of the take-over process, the take-over performance of drivers between different immersion durations was different, for example, the average speed of the vehicle is lower when the immersion duration is low. In the take-over process, the driver’s take-over speed and accelerator pedal operation intensity are negatively correlated with take-over urgency. The immersion duration of secondary tasks has different degrees of influence on the efficiency of section traffic flow. With the improvement of immersion duration level, the average vehicle delay on the road section also increases to a certain extent.
MetzB.WörleJ.HanigM.SchmittM.LutzA.NeukumA.Repeated Usage of a Motorway Automated Driving Function: Automation Level and Behavioural Adaption. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 81, 2021, pp. 82–100.
2.
AbeG.SatoK.UchidaN.ItohM.Effect of Changes in Levels of Automated Driving on Manual Control Recovery. International Federation of Automatic Control, Vol. 52, No. 19, 2019, pp. 79–84.
3.
LiS.BlytheP.ZhangY.EdwardsS.XingJ.GuoW.JiY.GoodmanP.NamdeoA.Should Older People be Considered a Homogeneous Group when Interacting with Level 3 Automated Vehicles?Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 78, 2021, pp. 446–465.
4.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. NHTSA Driver Distraction Expert Working Group Meetings Summary & Proceedings, Washington, D.C., 2000. https://trid.trb.org/view/660499.
5.
KongX.DasS.ZhangY.Mining Patterns of Near-Crash Events With and Without Secondary Tasks. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 157, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106162.
6.
JazayeriA.MartinezJ. R. B.LoebH. S.YangC. C.The Impact of Driver Distraction and Secondary Tasks With and Without Other Co-Occurring Driving Behaviors on the Level of Road Traffic Crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 153, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106010.
7.
YoungK. L.OsborneR.GrzebietaR.WilliamsonA.HaworthN.SenserrickT.StephanK. L.CharltonJ. L.Using Naturalistic Driving Data to Examine how Drivers Share Attention when Engaging in Secondary Tasks. Safety Science, Vol. 129, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104841.
8.
NobleA. M.MilesM.PerezM. A.GuoF.KlauerS. G.Evaluating Driver Eye Glance Behavior and Secondary Task Engagement While Using Driving Automation Systems. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 151, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105959.
9.
HenschA. C.RauhN.SchmidtC.HergethS.NaujoksF.KremsJ. F.KeinathA.Effects of Secondary Tasks and Display Position on Glance Behavior During Partially Automated Driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 68, 2020, pp. 23–32.
10.
NaujoksF.PuruckerC.NeukumA.Secondary Task Engagement and Vehicle Automation - Comparing the Effects of Different Automation Levels in an On-Road Experiment. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 38, 2016, pp. 67–82.
11.
JaroschO.KuhntM.ParadiesS.BenglerK.It’s out of our Hands Now! Effects of Non-Driving Related Tasks During Highly Automated Driving on Drivers’ Fatigue. Proc., 9th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, Germany, 2017. https://doi.org/10.17077/drivingassessment.1653.
12.
ErikssonA.StantonN. A.Takeover Time in Highly Automated Vehicles: Noncritical Transitions to and from Manual Control. The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 59, No. 4, 2017, pp. 689–705.
13.
DoganE.RahalM. C.DeborneR.DelhommeP.KemenyA.PerrinJ.Transition of Control in a Partially Automated Vehicle: Effects of Anticipation and Non-Driving-Related Task Involvement. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 46, 2017, pp. 205–215.
14.
BazilinskyyP.WinterJ. C. F.Analyzing Crowdsourced Ratings of Speech-Based Take-Over Requests for Automated Driving. Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 64, 2017, pp. 56–64.
15.
YoonS. H.KimY. W.JiY. G.The Effects of Takeover Request Modalities on Highly Automated Car Control Transitions. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 123, 2019, pp. 150–158.
16.
ForsterY.NaujoksF.NeukumA.HuesteggeL.Driver Compliance to Take-Over Requests with Different Auditory Outputs in Conditional Automation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 109, 2017, pp. 18–28.
17.
FeldhütterA.GoldC.SchneiderS.BenglerK.How the Duration of Automated Driving Influences Take-Over Performance and Gaze Behavior. In Advances in Ergonomic Design of Systems, Products and Processes (SchlickC. M.DuckwitzS.FlemischF.FrenzM.KuzS.MertensA.Mütze-NiewöhnerS., eds.), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017, pp. 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53305-5_22.
18.
BuenoM.DoganE.SelemF. H.MonacelliE.BoverieS.GuillaumeA.How Different Mental Workload Levels Affect the Take-Over Control After Automated Driving. Proc., IEEE 19th Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference, Rio de Janeiro, IEEE, New York, 2016, pp. 2040–2045. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2016.7795886.
19.
KimJ.KimW.KimH. S.LeeS. J.KwonO. C.YoonD.A Novel Study on Subjective Driver Readiness in Terms of Non-Driving Related Tasks and Take-Over Performance. ICT Express, Vol. 7, 2021, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icte.2021.04.008.
20.
LotzA.RusswinkelN.WohlfarthE.Response Times and Gaze Behavior of Truck Drivers in Time Critical Conditional Automated Driving Take-Overs. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 64, 2019, pp. 532–551.
21.
LiQ.HouL.WangZ.WangW.ZengC.YuanQ.ChengB.Drivers’ Visual-Distracted Take-Over Performance Model and its Application on Adaptive Adjustment of Time Budget. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 154, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106099.
22.
JiaD.SunJ.SharmaA.ZhengZ.LiuB.Integrated Simulation Platform for Conventional, Connected and Automated Driving: A Design from Cyber-Physical Systems Perspective. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 124, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2021.102984.
23.
LeeS.JeongE.OhM.OhC.Driving Aggressiveness Management Policy to Enhance the Performance of Mixed Traffic Conditions in Automated Driving Environments. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 121, 2019, pp. 136–146.
24.
CalvertS. C.AremB.A Generic Multi-Level Framework for Microscopic Traffic Simulation with Automated Vehicles in Mixed Traffic. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 110, 2020, pp. 291–311.
25.
KlischatM.DragoiO.EissaM.AlthoffM.Coupling SUMO with a Motion Planning Framework for Automated Vehicles. EPiC Series in Computing, Vol. 62, 2019, pp. 1–9.
26.
ScheltesA.CorreiaG. H. A.Exploring the Use of Automated Vehicles as Last Mile Connection of Train Trips Through an Agent-Based Simulation Model: An Application to Delft, Netherlands. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2017, pp. 28–41.
27.
UmenoR.ItohM.KitazakiS.Influence of Automated Driving on Driver’s Own Localization: A Driving Simulator Study. Journal of Intelligent and Connected Vehicles, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2019, pp. 99–106.
28.
Perello-MarchJ. R.BurnsC. G.WoodmanR.ElliottM. T.BirrellS. A.Driver State Monitoring: Manipulating Reliability Expectations in Simulated Automated Driving Scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2021, pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2021.3050518.
29.
SoJ. J.ParkS.KimJ.ParkJ.YunI.Investigating the Impacts of Road Traffic Conditions and Driver’s Characteristics on Automated Vehicle Takeover Time and Quality Using a Driving Simulator. Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 2021, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8859553.
30.
ItoT.TakataA.OosawaK.Time Required for Take-Over from Automated to Manual Driving. Presented at SAE 2016 World Congress and Exhibition, Detroit, 2016. https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-0158.
31.
DamböckD.WeißgerberT.KienleM.BenglerK.Requirements for Cooperative Vehicle Guidance. Proc., 16th International IEEE Annual Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, The Hague, Netherlands, IEEE, New York, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2013.6728467.
32.
KimH. J.YangJ. H.Takeover Requests in Simulated Partially Autonomous Vehicles Considering Human Factors. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine System, Vol. 47, No. 5, 2017, pp. 735–740.
