Takeover Requests Signaled by Arrows in an Automated Driving System: The Influence of Information Direction and Lead Time on Performance

Abstract

This study explored the impact of arrow cues in a head-up display (HUD) on takeover performance in a self-driving system. Experiment 1 investigated the effect of different cue types (arrow versus circle) on objective takeover performance and subjective evaluation in different takeover requests (TORs; toward-action versus toward-hazard) and lead time (4 s versus 7 s). Experiment 2 further investigated the different effect of single- and dual-message arrow cues. The results of experiment 1 showed that, compared with circle cues, arrow cues led to better performance in takeover tasks, as evidenced by both the objective measures and subjective evaluations. The results of experiment 2 revealed that single-message arrow cues outperformed dual-message cues. The study indicated that single-message arrow cues had better outcomes in the TOR tasks of a self-driving system, particularly when using toward-action TORs. Our findings have important implications for future TOR cue design in the HUD of automated driving systems.

Keywords

HUD takeover request directional TORs graphic positions

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chen

Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles. SAE International, Warrendale, PA, 2021.

Zeeb

Buchner

Schrauf

What Determines the Take-Over Time? An Integrated Model Approach of Driver Take-Over After Automated Driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 78, 2015, pp. 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.02.023.

McDonald

A. D.

Alambeigi

Engstrom

Markkula

Vogelpohl

Dunne

Yuma

Toward Computational Simulations of Behavior During Automated Driving Takeovers: A Review of the Empirical and Modeling Literatures. Human Factors, Vol. 61, No. 4, 2019, pp. 642–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819829572.

Petermeijer

S. M.

de Winter

J. C. F.

Bengler

K. J.

Vibrotactile Displays: A Survey With a View on Highly Automated Driving. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2016, pp. 897–907. https://doi.org/10.1109/tits.2015.2494873.

Endsley

M. R.

Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT). Proc., IEEE 1988 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference, Dayton, OH, USA, 1988, pp. 789–795.

Y. K.

Huang

W. X.

Fang

C. W.

Effects of Different Takeover Request Interfaces on Takeover Behavior and Performance During Conditionally Automated Driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 162, No. 8, 2021, p. 106425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106425.

Yang

Karakaya

Dominioni

Kawabe

Bengler

An HMI Concept to Improve Driver’s Visual Behavior and Situation Awareness in Automated Vehicle. 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Maui, HI, USA, 2018, pp. 650–655.

Guo

Effect of Directional Auditory Takeover Request on Takeover Behavior and Eye Movement in Conditionally Automated Driving. World Electric Vehicle Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2023, p. 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj14030070.

Cohen-Lazry

Katzman

Borowsky

Oron-Gilad

Directional Tactile Alerts for Take-Over Requests in Highly-Automated Driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 65, 2019, pp. 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.07.025.

10.

Shi

J. L.

C. X.

Zheng

H. J.

Zhang

X. Y.

Chai

C. L.

Toward Hazard or Action? Effects of Directional Vibrotactile Takeover Requests on Takeover Performance in Automated Driving. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2022, pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2105479.

11.

Song

Wang

Gan

Yang

Liu

Danger or Avoidance Indication: Dynamics Interact with Semantics in Auditory Icons to Avoid Collisions. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 92, 2022, p. 103353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2022.103353.

12.

Wang

Pick

Proctor

Effect of a Side Collision-Avoidance Signal on Simulated Driving with a Navigation System. Driving Assessment 2007: 4th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design. Stevenson, Washington, 2017.

13.

Straughn

S. M.

Gray

Tan

H. Z.

To Go or Not to Go: Stimulus–Response Compatibility for Tactile and Auditory Pedestrian Collision Warnings. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2009, pp. 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2009.15.

14.

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.

15.

Chen

Sabic

Mishler

Parker

Yamaguchi

Effectiveness of Lateral Auditory Collision Warnings: Should Warnings Be Toward Danger or Toward Safety?

Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 64, No. 2, 2020, pp. 418–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820941618.

16.

de Winter

Petermeijer

Ipsilateral and Contralateral Warnings: Effects on Decision-Making and Eye Movements in Near-Collision Scenarios. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2022, pp. 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-022-00390-6.

17.

Petermeijer

Bazilinskyy

Bengler

de Winter

Take-Over Again: Investigating Multimodal and Directional TORs to Get the Driver Back Into the Loop. Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 62, 2017, pp. 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.02.023.

18.

Posner

M. I.

Orienting of Attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1980, pp. 3–25.

19.

Winkler

Kazazi

Vollrath

How to Warn Drivers in Various Safety-Critical Situations—Different Strategies, Different Reactions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 117, 2018, pp. 410–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.01.040.

20.

Eriksson

Petermeijer

S. M.

Zimmermann

de Winter

J. C. F.

Bengler

K. J.

Stanton

N. A.

Rolling Out the Red (and Green) Carpet: Supporting Driver Decision Making in Automation-to-Manual Transitions. IEEE Transactions on Human–Machine Systems, Vol. 49, No. 1, 2019, pp. 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2018.2883862

21.

You

Wang

Zhu

Hansen

Take-Over Requests Analysis in Conditional Automated Driving and Research of Visual Driving Encountering Highway Road Hazard. Springer, Cham, 2018.

22.

Hart

S. G.

Staveland

L. E.

Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. Advances in Psychology, Vol. 52, 1988, pp. 139–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9.

23.

Zhang

Yang

Kang

Chai

Shi

Promote or Inhibit: An Inverted U-Shaped Effect of Workload on Driver Takeover Performance. Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol. 21, No. 7, 2020, pp. 482–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2020.1804060.

24.

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, 2021, pp. 352–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1860514.

25.

Sabic

Chen

MacDonald

Toward a Better Understanding of In-Vehicle Auditory Warnings and Background Noise. Human Factors the Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 63, No. 2, 2019, pp. 312–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819879311.

26.

Baayen

R. H.

Davidson

D. J.

Bates

D. M.

Mixed-Effects Modeling with Crossed Random Effects for Subjects and Items. Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 59, No. 4, 2008, pp. 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005

27.

Tipples

Eye Gaze is Not Unique: Automatic Orienting in Response to Uninformative Arrows. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Vol. 9, 2002, pp. 314–318.

28.

Proctor

R. W.

K.-P. L.

Stimulus–Response Compatibility Principles. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2006.

29.

Gibson

B. S.

Scheutz

Davis

G. J.

Symbolic Control of Visual Attention: Semantic Constraints on the Spatial Distribution of Attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, Vol. 71, 2009, pp. 363–374.

30.

Zhang

Yang

Liang

Pitts

B. J.

Prakah-Asante

Curry

Duerstock

Wachs

J. P.

Physiological Measurements of Situation Awareness: A Systematic Review. Human Factors, Vol. 65, No. 5, 2020, pp. 737–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820969071

31.

Huang

Pitts

B. J.

To Inform or to Instruct? An Evaluation of Meaningful Vibrotactile Patterns to Support Automated Vehicle Takeover Performance. IEEE Transactions on Human–Machine Systems, Vol. 53, No. 4, 2023, pp. 678–687. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2022.3205880.

32.

Cranor

L. F.

A Framework for Reasoning About the Human in the Loop. Proc., 1st Conference on Usability, Psychology, and Security, San Francisco, CA, 2008.

33.

Sperber

Wilson

Relevance: Communication and Cognition (Vol. 142). Citeseer, Oxford, 1986.

34.

Grice

H. P.

Logic and Conversation. Brill, New York, 1975.

35.

Alluisi

E. A.

Warm

J. S.

Things That Go Together: A Review of Stimulus–Response Compatibility and Related Effects (Vol. 65). North-Holland, Newark, Delaware, 1990.

36.

Borowsky

Shinar

Oron-Gilad

Age, Skill, and Hazard Perception in Driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 42, No. 4, 2010, pp. 1240–1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.02.001.