Are Warnings Suitable for Presentation in Head-Up Display? A Meta-Analysis for the Effect of Head-Up Display Warning on Driving Performance

Abstract

Head-up display (HUD) warnings are gaining increasing attention with the growing importance of advanced warning systems in vehicles for improving driving safety. However, the effectiveness of HUD warnings is still controversial considering the various driving performance indexes, warning modalities, and driving scenarios used in previous studies. This study conducts meta-analyses of the relevant literature to examine whether HUD warnings (both unimodal HUD warnings and multimodal warnings with HUD) have advantages compared with other warnings (head-down display warnings, auditory warnings, tactile warnings, and multimodal warnings without HUD) for driver reaction times and driving quality. Overall, 33 articles were included in four meta-analyses. Additionally, the effects of the related moderator variables of scenario, mapping of warnings, and non-driving-related tasks (NDRTs) on the relationship between using HUD warnings and using non-HUD warnings was analyzed. The results show that using unimodal HUD warnings leads to faster reaction times compared with head-down display warnings but has no significant advantage on driving performance over auditory warnings in general and results in slower reaction times than using tactile warnings. However, results of the moderating effects suggest that using HUD warnings in non-critical scenarios and using high mapping HUD icons (i.e., HUD warnings with specific hazard information) are conducive to improving driving performance in comparison with other warning types. These results highlight the potential advantages of HUD in transmitting warning information. The future application and design of HUD warnings may need to focus on specific situations considering iconic mapping to an event.

Keywords

head-up display warnings driver performance meta-analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chen

Pan

Cao

Real-Time Lane Detection Model Based on Non Bottleneck Skip Residual Connections and Attention Pyramids. PLoS One, Vol. 16, No. 10, 2021, p. e0252755. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252755.

Vahidi

Eskandarian

Research Advances in Intelligent Collision Avoidance and Adaptive Cruise Control. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2003, pp. 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2003.821292.

Wang

F. Y.

Toward a Revolution in Transportation Operations: AI for Complex Systems. IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 23, No. 6, 2008, pp. 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2008.112.

Chu

Mammar

Zhou

Petri Net Modeling of the Cooperation Behavior of a Driver and a Copilot in an Advanced Driving Assistance System. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2011, pp. 977–989. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2011.2131651.

Summala

Lamble

Laakso

Driving Experience and Perception of the Lead Car’s Braking When Looking at In-Car Targets. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1998, pp. 401–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(98)00005-0.

Dingus

T. A.

Jahns

S. K.

Horowitz

A. D.

Knipling

Human Factors Design Issues for Crash Avoidance Systems. In Human Factors in Intelligent Transportation Systems ( Barfield

Dingus

T. A.

, eds.), 2nd ed., Psychology Press, New York, 1998, pp. 55–93.

Winkler

Werneke

Vollrath

Timing of Early Warning Stages in a Multi Stage Collision Warning System: Drivers’ Evaluation Depending on Situational Influences. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 36, 2016, pp. 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.11.001.

Bella

Silvestri

Effects of Directional Auditory and Visual Warnings at Intersections on Reaction Times and Speed Reduction Times. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 51, 2017, pp. 88–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.09.006.

Werneke

Vollrath

How to Present Collision Warnings at Intersections? — A Comparison of Different Approaches. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 52, 2013, pp. 91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.12.001.

10.

Smith

Gabbard

J. L.

Burnett

Doutcheva

The Effects of Augmented Reality Head-Up Displays on Drivers’ Eye Scan Patterns, Performance, and Perceptions. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction (IJMHCI), Vol. 9, No. 2, 2017, pp. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJMHCI.2017040101.

11.

Yang

Shi

Kang

Zhang

Effect of Warning Graphics Location on Driving Performance: An Eye Movement Study. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, Vol. 36, No. 12, 2020, pp. 1150–1160. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1722401.

12.

Liu

Y. C.

Wen

M. H.

Comparison of Head-Up Display (HUD) vs. Head-Down Display (HDD): Driving Performance of Commercial Vehicle Operators in Taiwan. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 61, No. 5, 2004, pp. 679–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.06.002.

13.

Neurauter

M. L.

Multimodal Warnings: Curve-Warning Design. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 49, No. 22, 2005, pp. 1945–1949. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120504902213.

14.

Huang

Steele

Zhang

Pitts

B. J.

Multimodal Cue Combinations: A Possible Approach to Designing In-Vehicle Takeover Requests for Semi-Autonomous Driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2019, pp. 1739–1743. https://doi.org/10.1177/107118131963105.

15.

Huang

Pitts

B. J.

The Effects of Age and Physical Exercise on Multimodal Signal Responses: Implications for Semi-Autonomous Vehicle Takeover Requests. Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 98, 2022, p. 103595.

16.

Park

Choi

Kim

Hwang

S. H.

Takeover Safety Analysis with Driver Monitoring Systems and Driver–Vehicle Interfaces in Highly Automated Vehicles. Applied Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 15, 2021, p. 6685. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11156685.

17.

Huang

Pitts

B. J.

Takeover Requests for Automated Driving: The Effects of Signal Direction, Lead Time, and Modality on Takeover Performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 165, 2022, p. 106534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106534.

18.

Politis

Brewster

Pollick

Evaluating Multimodal Driver Displays of Varying Urgency. Proc., 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 2013, pp. 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1145/2516540.2516543.

19.

Yun

Yang

J. H.

Multimodal Warning Design for Take-Over Request in Conditionally Automated Driving. European Transport Research Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2020, pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-020-00427-5.

20.

Wang

Gan

Liu

Yang

Effect of Mapping Characteristic on Audiovisual Warning: Evidence from a Simulated Driving Study. Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 99, 2022, p. 103638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103638.

21.

Chang

Hwang

Y. G.

Haptic Seat Interfaces for Driver Information and Warning Systems. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, Vol. 27, No. 12, 2011, pp. 1119–1132. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2011.555321.

22.

Politis

Brewster

Pollick

Using Multimodal Displays to Signify Critical Handovers of Control to Distracted Autonomous Car Drivers. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction (IJMHCI), Vol. 9, No. 3, 2017, pp. 1–16. http://doi.org/10.4018/ijmhci.2017070101.

23.

Yang

Ferris

T. K.

Supporting Multitracking Performance with Novel Visual, Auditory, and Tactile Displays. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, Vol. 50, No. 1, 2019, pp. 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2019.2947580.

24.

Maag

Schneider

Lübbeke

Weisswange

T. H.

Goerick

Car Gestures-Advisory Warning Using Additional Steering Wheel Angles. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 83, 2015, pp. 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.07.020.

25.

Murata

Kanbayashi

Hayami

Effectiveness of Automotive Warning System Presented with Multiple Sensory Modalities. In Proc., International Conference on Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management ( Duffy

V. G.

, ed.), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 88–97.

26.

Pimenta

An Intuitive Navigation System: Augmented Reality on the Car Windshield. Proc., 20th EPCG, Viana do Castelo, Portugal, October 24–26, 2012.

27.

Tufano

D. R.

Automotive HUDs: The Overlooked Safety Issues. Human Factors, Vol. 39, No. 2, 1997, pp. 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543840.

28.

Kim

Gabbard

J. L.

Assessing Distraction Potential of Augmented Reality Head-Up Displays for Vehicle Drivers. Human Factors, Vol. 64, No. 5, 2019, pp. 852–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819844845.

29.

Most

S. B.

Scholl

B. J.

Clifford

E. R.

Simons

D. J.

What You See Is What You Set: Sustained Inattentional Blindness and the Capture of Awareness. Psychological Review, Vol. 112, No. 1, 2005, pp. 217–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.217.

30.

Karar

Ghosh

Attention Tunneling: Effects of Limiting Field of View Due to Beam Combiner Frame of Head-Up Display. Journal of Display Technology, Vol. 10, No. 7, 2014, pp. 582–589. https://doi.org/10.1109/JDT.2014.2311159.

31.

Dicke

Jakus

Sodnik

Auditory and Head-Up Displays in Vehicles. In Proc., International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction ( Kurosu

, ed.), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 551–560.

32.

Prinzel

L. J.

III Risser

Head-Up Displays and Attention Capture. Technical Report No. NASA/TM-2004-213000. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, 2004.

33.

Caño

González

Maroto

Villegas

Head-Up Displays (HUD) in Driving. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1803.08383, 2018.

34.

Lubbe

Brake Reactions of Distracted Drivers to Pedestrian Forward Collision Warning Systems. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 61, 2017, pp. 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2017.02.002.

35.

Gish

K. W.

Staplin

Human Factors Aspects of Using Head Up Displays in Automobiles: A Review of the Literature. Report DOT-HS-808-320. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1995.

36.

Liu

Y. C.

Effects of Using Head-Up Display in Automobile Context on Attention Demand and Driving Performance. Displays, Vol. 24, No. 4–5, 2003, pp. 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2004.01.001.

37.

Wickens

C. D.

Multiple Resources and Performance Prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2002, pp. 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220210123806.

38.

Bakowski

D. L.

Davis

S. T.

Moroney

W. F.

Reaction Time and Glance Behavior of Visually Distracted Drivers to an Imminent Forward Collision as a Function of Training, Auditory Warning, and Gender. Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 3, 2015, pp. 3238–3245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.875.

39.

Politis

Brewster

Pollick

Evaluating Multimodal Driver Displays Under Varying Situational Urgency. Proc., SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 2014, pp. 4067–4076. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2556988.

40.

Biondi

Leo

Gastaldi

Rossi

Mulatti

How to Drive Drivers Nuts: Effect of Auditory, Vibrotactile, and Multimodal Warnings on Perceived Urgency, Annoyance, and Acceptability. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2017. 2663: 34–39.

41.

Aust

M. L.

Effects of Haptic Versus Visual Modalities When Combined with Sound in Forward Collision Warnings. Proc., Driving Simulation Conference, Paris, France, 2014.

42.

Zhang

Tan

Effects of Multimodal Warning Types on Driver’s Task Performance, Physiological Data and User Experience. In Proc., International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction ( Rau

P. L. P.

, ed.), Springer, Cham, July 2021, pp. 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77080-8_25.

43.

Politis

Brewster

Pollick

Language-Based Multimodal Displays for the Handover of Control in Autonomous Cars. Proc., 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 2015, pp. 3–10. http://doi.org/10.1145/2799250.2799262.

44.

Politis

Brewster

Pollick

To Beep or Not to Beep? Comparing Abstract Versus Language-Based Multimodal Driver Displays. Proc., 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, Republic of Korea, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, April 2015, pp. 3971–3980. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702167.

45.

Götze

Bißbort

Petermann-Stock

Bengler

“A Careful Driver Is One Who Looks in Both Directions When He Passes a Red Light”–Increased Demands in Urban Traffic. In Proc., International Conference on Human Interface and the Management of Information ( Yamamoto

, ed.), Springer, Cham, June 2014, pp. 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07863-2_23.

46.

Peng

Chen

Examining the Effects of Visibility and Time Headway on the Takeover Risk During Conditionally Automated Driving. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 19, No. 21, 2022, p. 13904. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113904.

47.

Lyu

Does a Faster Takeover Necessarily Mean It Is Better? A Study on the Influence of Urgency and Takeover-Request Lead Time on Takeover Performance and Safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 171, 2022, p. 106647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106647.

48.

Watson

Cech

Eßers

A Driving Simulator HMI Study Comparing a Steering Wheel Mounted Display to HUD, Instrument Panel and Center Stack Displays for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems and Warnings. SAE Technical Paper 2010-01-1039. SAE International, 2010. https://doi.org/10.4271/2010-01-1039

49.

Naujoks

Kiesel

Neukum

Cooperative Warning Systems: The Impact of False and Unnecessary Alarms on Drivers’ Compliance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 97, 2016, pp. 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.09.009.

50.

Schwarz

Fastenmeier

Augmented Reality Warnings in Vehicles: Effects of Modality and Specificity on Effectiveness. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 101, 2017, pp. 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.01.019.

51.

Lee

S. C.

Yoon

S. H.

Y. G.

Effects of Non-Driving-Related Task Attributes on Takeover Quality in Automated Vehicles. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, Vol. 37, No. 3, 2020, pp. 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1815361.

52.

Feldhütter

Hecht

Kalb

Bengler

Effect of Prolonged Periods of Conditionally Automated Driving on the Development of Fatigue: With and Without Non-Driving-Related Activities. Cognition, Technology & Work, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2019, pp. 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0524-9.

53.

Gershon

Ronen

Oron-Gilad

Shinar

The Effects of an Interactive Cognitive Task (ICT) in Suppressing Fatigue Symptoms in Driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2009, pp. 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2008.06.004.

54.

Neubauer

Matthews

Saxby

Fatigue in the Automated Vehicle: Do Games and Conversation Distract or Energize the Driver?

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, SAGE, Los Angeles, CA, September 2014, pp. 2053–2057. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581432.

55.

Oviedo-Trespalacios

Haque

M. M.

King

Demmel

Driving Behaviour While Self-Regulating Mobile Phone Interactions: A Human-Machine System Approach. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 118, 2018, pp. 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.03.020.

56.

S. M.

Y. G.

How We Can Measure the Non-Driving-Task Engagement in Automated Driving: Comparing Flow Experience and Workload. Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 67, 2018, pp. 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.10.009.

57.

Klauer

S. G.

Ehsani

J. P.

McGehee

D. V.

Manser

The Effect of Secondary Task Engagement on Adolescents’ Driving Performance and Crash Risk. Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 57, No. 1, 2015, pp. S36–S43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.03.014.

58.

Dettmann

Bullinger

A. C.

Spatially Distributed Visual, Auditory and Multimodal Warning Signals—A Comparison. In Proc., Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Europe Chapter 2016 Annual Conference ( de Waard

Toffetti

Wiczorek

Sonderegger

Röttger

Bouchner

Franke

Fairclough

Noordzij

Brookhuis

, eds.), 2017, pp. 185–199. ISSN 2333-4959 (online). http://hfes-europe.org.

59.

Oskarsson

P. A.

Eriksson

Carlander

Enhanced Perception and Performance by Multimodal Threat Cueing in Simulated Combat Vehicle. Human Factors, Vol. 54, No. 1, 2012, pp. 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811424895.

60.

SAE International. Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles. SAE International, Vol. 4970, No. 724, 2018, pp. 1–5.

61.

Lin

Tong

Chen

Wang

Fixed-Effects Model: The Most Convincing Model for Meta-Analysis with Few Studies. arXiv Preprint arXiv:2002.04211, 2020.

62.

S. A.

Wickens

C. D.

Prinet

J. C.

Hutchins

S. D.

Sarter

Sebok

Supporting Interruption Management and Multimodal Interface Design: Three Meta-Analyses of Task Performance as a Function of Interrupting Task Modality. Human Factors, Vol. 55, No. 4, 2013, pp. 697–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813476298.

63.

Elvik

Area-Wide Urban Traffic Calming Schemes: A Meta-Analysis of Safety Effects. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2001, pp. 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(00)00046-4.

64.

Fagard

R. H.

Staessen

J. A.

Thijs

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Meta-Analysis Approach. Journal of Hypertension, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1996, P. S9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004872-199609002-00004.

65.

Ziakopoulos

Theofilatos

Papadimitriou

Yannis

A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Operating In-Vehicle Information Systems on Road Safety. IATSS Research, Vol. 43, No. 3, 2019, pp. 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2019.01.003.

66.

Caird

J. K.

Simmons

S. M.

Wiley

Johnston

K. A.

Horrey

W. J.

Does Talking on a Cell Phone, with a Passenger, or Dialing Affect Driving Performance? An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies. Human Factors, Vol. 60, No. 1, 2018, pp. 101–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817748145.

67.

Millet

Ahn

Chattah

The Impact of Music on Vehicular Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 60, 2019, pp. 743–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.10.007.

68.

Zhang

de Winter

Varotto

Happee

Martens

Determinants of Take-Over Time from Automated Driving: A Meta-Analysis of 129 Studies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 64, 2019, pp. 285–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.04.020.

69.

Glass

G. V.

Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research. Educational Researcher, Vol. 5, No. 10, 1976, pp. 3–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003.

70.

Glass

G. V.

One Hundred Years of Research: Prudent Aspirations. Educational Researcher, Vol. 45, No. 2, 2016, pp. 69–72. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16639026.

71.

Ranganathan

Aggarwal

Study Designs: Part 8. Meta-Analysis (I). Perspectives in Clinical Research, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2020, p. 178. https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.PICR_283_20.

72.

Arya

Schwartz

T. A.

Ghaferi

A. A.

Practical Guide to Meta-Analysis. JAMA Surgery, Vol. 155, No. 5, 2020, pp. 430–431. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.4523.

73.

Greco

Zangrillo

Biondi-Zoccai

Landoni

Meta-Analysis: Pitfalls and Hints. Heart, Lung and Vessels, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2013, p. 219.

74.

Feierle

Beller

Bengler

Head-Up Displays in Urban Partially Automated Driving: Effects of Using Augmented Reality. Proc., IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), Auckland, New Zealand, IEEE, New York, 2019, pp. 1877–1882. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2019.8917472.

75.

Yang

Karakaya

Dominioni

G. C.

Kawabe

Bengler

An HMI Concept to Improve Driver’s Visual Behavior and Situation Awareness in Automated Vehicle. Proc., 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Maui, HI, IEEE, New York, 2018, pp. 650–655. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2018.8569986.

76.

Charissis

Papanastasiou

Vlachos

Interface Development for Early Notification Warning System: Full Windshield Head-Up Display Case Study. In Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 5613 (J. A. Jacko, Ed.), Interacting in Various Application Domains: 13th International Conference, HCI International 2009, Springer, 2009, pp. 683–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02583-9_74

77.

Feierle

Schlichtherle

Bengler

Augmented Reality Head-Up Display: A Visual Support During Malfunctions in Partially Automated Driving?

IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 23, No. 5, 2021, pp. 4853–4865. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2021.3119774.

78.

Kim

Gabbard

J. L.

Polys

N. F.

Exploring Head-Up Augmented Reality Interfaces for Crash Warning Systems. Proc., 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 2013, pp. 224–227. https://doi.org/10.1145/2516540.2516566.

79.

Salminen

Farooq

Rantala

Surakka

Raisamo

. Unimodal and Multimodal Signals to Support Control Transitions in Semiautonomous Vehicles. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2019, pp. 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1145/3342197.3344522.

80.

Zhang

Tao

Xue

The Association Between Sensation Seeking and Driving Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 123, 2019, pp. 222–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.11.023.

81.

Weaver

B. W.

DeLucia

P. R.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Takeover Performance During Conditionally Automated Driving. Human Factors, 2020, pp. 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820976476.

82.

Winkler

Kazazi

Vollrath

Distractive or Supportive—How Warnings in the Head-Up Display Affect Drivers’ Gaze and Driving Behavior. Proc., IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Gran Canaria, Spain, IEEE, New York, 2015, pp. 1035–1040. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2015.172.

83.

Kozak

Pohl

Birk

Greenberg

Artz

Blommer

Cathey

Curry

Evaluation of Lane Departure Warnings for Drowsy Drivers. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 50, No. 22, 2006, pp. 2400–2404. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605002211.

84.

Kazazi

Winkler

Vollrath

Accident Prevention Through Visual Warnings: How to Design Warnings in Head-Up Display for Older and Younger Drivers. Proc., IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Gran Canaria, Spain, IEEE, New York, 2015, pp. 1028–1034. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2015.171.

85.

Abdel-Aty

Park

Zhu

Effects of Crash Warning Systems on Rear-End Crash Avoidance Behavior Under Fog Conditions. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 95, 2018, pp. 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.08.001.

86.

Huang

Evaluation of Multimodal and Multi-Staged Alerting Strategies for Forward Collision Warning Systems. Sensors, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2022, p. 1189. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22031189.

87.

Barili

Parolari

Kappetein

P. A.

Freemantle

Statistical Primer: Heterogeneity, Random- or Fixed-Effects Model Analyses?

Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2018, pp. 317–321. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivy163.

88.

Higgins

J. P.

Thompson

S. G.

Deeks

J. J.

Altman

D. G.

Measuring Inconsistency in Meta-Analyses. BMJ, Vol. 327, No. 7414, 2003, pp. 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.

89.

Cheung

M. W. L.

R. C.

Lim

Mak

Conducting a Meta-Analysis: Basics and Good Practices. International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2012, pp. 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-185X.2012.01712.x.

90.

Lin

Aloe

A. M.

Evaluation of Various Estimators for Standardized Mean Difference in Meta-Analysis. Statistics in Medicine, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2020, pp. 403–426. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.8781.

91.

Lin

Chu

Quantifying Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis. Biometrics, Vol. 74, No. 3, 2018, pp. 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.12817.

92.

Borenstein

Hedges

Higgins

Rothstein

Publication Bias. Comprehensive Meta Analysis Version 3.0, 2004, pp. 92–93.

93.

Borenstein

Hedges

L. V.

Higgins

J. P.

Rothstein

H. R.

Introduction to Meta-Analysis. A John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., 2011.

94.

Almén

Using the Cocktail Party Effect as Driver Attention Control. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 45, No. 22, 2001, pp. 1559–1562. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120104502205.

95.

Gan

Pei

Wang

Shang

S. E.

Nie

Multisource Adaption for Driver Attention Prediction in Arbitrary Driving Scenes. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 23, No. 11, 2022, pp. 20912–20925. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2022.3177640.

96.

Wickens

C. D.

Helleberg

Goh

Horrey

W. J.

Pilot Task Management: Testing an Attentional Expected Value Model of Visual Scanning. ARL-01-14/NASA-01-7. University of Illinois, Aviation Research Lab, Savoy, IL, 2001.

97.

Wogalter

M. S.

Communication-Human Information Processing (C-HIP) Model. In Forensic Human Factors and Ergonomics ( Wogalter

M. S.

, ed.), 1st ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2018, pp. 33–49.

98.

Monsell

Lavric

Strivens

Paul

Can We Prepare to Attend to One of Two Simultaneous Voices?

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 45, No. 7, 2019, p. 966. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000650.

99.

Kristofferson

A. B.

Attention and Psychophysical Time. Acta Psychologica, Vol. 27, 1967, pp. 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(67)90049-2.

100.

Rodway

The Modality Shift Effect and the Effectiveness of Warning Signals in Different Modalities. Acta Psychologica, Vol. 120, No. 2, 2005, pp. 199–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.05.002.

101.

Zhang

Yang

Kang

Chai

Shi

Zeng

Take Over Gradually in Conditional Automated Driving: The Effect of Two-Stage Warning Systems on Situation Awareness, Driving Stress, Takeover Performance, and Acceptance. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, Vol. 37, No. 4, 2020, pp. 352–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1860514.

102.

Werneke

Kleen

Vollrath

Perfect Timing: Urgency, Not Driving Situations, Influence the Best Timing to Activate Warnings. Human Factors, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2014, pp. 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813490728.

103.

Dingus

T. A.

Klauer

S. G.

Neale

V. L.

Petersen

Lee

S. E.

Sudweeks

Perez

M. A.

, et al. The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, Phase II-Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment. No. DOT-HS-810-593. United States Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2006.

104.

Pitts

B. J.

Sarter

What You Don’t Notice Can Harm You: Age-Related Differences in Detecting Concurrent Visual, Auditory, and Tactile Cues. Human Factors, Vol. 60, No. 4, 2018, pp. 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818759102.

105.

Freeman

M. O.

MEMS Scanned Laser Head-Up Display. MOEMS and Miniaturized Systems X, Vol. 7930, SPIE, February 2011, pp. 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.879031.

106.

Hedili

M. K.

Freeman

M. O.

Urey

Microlens Array-Based High-Gain Screen Design for Direct Projection Head-Up Displays. Applied Optics, Vol. 52, No. 6, 2013, pp. 1351–1357. https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.52.001351.

107.

Szabo

Gontean

Burta

The Development of a Head-Up Display (HUD) App on the Android Mobile Operating System. Proc., IEEE 27th International Symposium for Design and Technology in Electronic Packaging (SIITME), Timisoara, Romania, IEEE, New York, October 2021, pp. 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIITME53254.2021.9663719.

108.

Wolffsohn

J. S.

McBrien

N. A.

Edgar

G. K.

Stout

The Influence of Cognition and Age on Accommodation, Detection Rate and Response Times When Using a Car Head-Up Display (HUD). Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1998, pp. 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1475-1313.1998.00350.x.

109.

Chen

Lin

Zhai

Tan

Are Novice Drivers Competent to Take Over Control from Level 3 Automated Vehicles? A Comparative Study with Experienced Drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 81, 2021, pp. 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.05.012.

110.

Nabatilan

L. B.

Aghazadeh

Nimbarte

A. D.

Harvey

C. C.

Chowdhury

S. K.

Effect of Driving Experience on Visual Behavior and Driving Performance Under Different Driving Conditions. Cognition, Technology & Work, Vol. 14, 2012, pp. 355–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-011-0184-5.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.76 MB