Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-10
Influence of Foggy Weather on Drivers’ Situation Awareness in the Takeover Process of Level 3 Automated Vehicles: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study
Foggy weather is a prominent contributing factor to the malfunction of Level 3 automated driving systems, potentially impairing drivers’ perception and reaction during the takeover process. While previous studies have investigated fog’s impact on takeover safety by assessing drivers’ visual attention, the influence of fog on drivers’ recovery of situation awareness (SA) during takeovers—particularly concerning neural activities—has been overlooked. This research aims to use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine how fog affects drivers’ brain activities during takeovers of Level 3 automated driving. Thirty volunteers participated in the experiment. Initially, they engaged in a non-driving-related task. On receiving a takeover request, participants pressed a button, which was followed by the presentation of a driving scenario video. The results showed that fog did not affect brain activation in non-critical takeovers, while significantly influencing brain activation in critical takeovers. Compared with the clear × critical scenario, the percentage change in signal intensity of the middle occipital gyrus and the fusiform gyrus in the foggy × critical scenario was significantly lower. Moreover, the thalamus, prefrontal cortex, and precuneus were activated only in the clear × critical scenario, suggesting that high-level cognitive functions were impeded in foggy weather. These findings indicate that foggy weather impairs drivers’ information perception (Level 1 SA) during takeovers, consequently suppressing comprehension (Level 2 SA) and projection (Level 3 SA). This highlights the potential of fMRI as an effective tool for comprehending drivers’ cognitive states throughout the takeover process.
MeratN.JamsonA. H.LaiF. C. H.CarstenO.Highly Automated Driving, Secondary Task Performance, and Driver State. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 54, No. 5, 2012, pp. 762–771.
2.
GoldC.DamböckD.LorenzL.BenglerK.“Take over!” How Long Does It Take to Get the Driver Back into the Loop?Proc., the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, 2013, pp. 1938–1942.
3.
EndsleyM. R.Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT). Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference, New York, 1988, pp. 789–795.
4.
HorswillM. S.McKennaF. P.Drivers’ Hazard Perception Ability: Situation Awareness on the Road. In A Cognitive Approach to Situation Awareness: Theory and Application, (BanburyS.TremblayS. eds.), Ashgate, Hampshire, pp. 155–175.
5.
TanX.ZhangY.The Effects of Takeover Request Lead Time on Drivers’ Situation Awareness for Manually Exiting from Freeways: A Web-Based Study on Level 3 Automated Vehicles. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 168, 2022, p. 106593.
6.
MaS.ZhangW.YangZ.KangC.WuC.ChaiC.ShiJ.ZengY.LiH.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.
7.
Abdel-AtyM.EkramA.-A.HuangH.ChoiK.A Study on Crashes Related to Visibility Obstruction Due to Fog and Smoke. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 43, No. 5, 2011, pp. 1730–1737.
8.
McCannK.FontaineM. D.Assessing Driver Speed Choice in Fog with the Use of Visibility Data from Road Weather Information Systems. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2016. 2551: 90–99.
9.
MeratN.SeppeltB.LouwT.EngströmJ.LeeJ. D.JohanssonE.GreenC. A., et al. The “Out-of-the-Loop” Concept in Automated Driving: Proposed Definition, Measures and Implications. Cognition, Technology & Work, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2019, pp. 87–98.
10.
BrooksJ. O.CrislerM. C.KleinN.GoodenoughR.BeecoR. W.GuirlC.TylerP. J., et al. Speed Choice and Driving Performance in Simulated Foggy Conditions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 43, No. 3, 2011, pp. 698–705.
11.
LouwT.KountouriotisG.CarstenO.Driver Inattention During Vehicle Automation: How Does Driver Engagement Affect Resumption of Control?Proc., the 4th International Driver Distraction and Inattention Conference, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 2015.
12.
LouwT.MadiganR.CarstenO.MeratN.Were They in the Loop during Automated Driving? Links between Visual Attention and Crash Potential. Injury Prevention, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2017, pp. 281–286.
13.
LouwT.MarkkulaG.BoerE.MadiganR.CarstenO.MeratN.Coming Back into the Loop: Drivers’ Perceptual-Motor Performance in Critical Events after Automated Driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 108, 2017, pp. 9–18.
14.
LouwT.MeratN.Are You in the Loop? Using Gaze Dispersion to Understand Driver Visual Attention during Vehicle Automation. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 76, 2017, pp. 35–50.
15.
LiS.BlytheP.GuoW.NamdeoA.Investigation of Older Driver’s Takeover Performance in Highly Automated Vehicles in Adverse Weather Conditions. IET Intelligent Transport Systems, Vol. 12, No. 9, 2018, pp. 1157–1165.
16.
YangL.HeZ.GuanW.JiangS.Exploring the Relationship between Electroencephalography (EEG) and Ordinary Driving Behavior: A Simulated Driving Study. Transportation research record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2018. 2672: 172–180.
17.
OrinoY.YoshinoK.OkaN.YamamotoK.TakahashiH.KatoT.Brain Activity Involved in Vehicle Velocity Changes in a Sag Vertical Curve on an Expressway: Vector-Based Functional near-Infrared Spectroscopy Study. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2015. 2518:18–26.
18.
TsunashimaH.YanagisawaK.Measurement of Brain Function of Car Driver Using Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS). Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, Vol. 2009, 2009, pp. 1–12.
19.
SasaokaT.HaradaT.SatoD.MichidaN.YonezawaH.TakayamaM.NouzawaT.YamawakiS.Neural Basis for Anxiety and Anxiety-Related Physiological Responses during Simulated Driving: An fMRI Study. bioRxiv, 2021.
20.
ArakawaT.HibiR.FujishiroT.Psychophysical Assessment of a Driver’s Mental State in Autonomous Vehicles. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 124, 2019, pp. 587–610.
21.
LeeJ.YangJ. H.Analysis of Driver’s EEG Given Take-Over Alarm in SAE Level 3 Automated Driving in a Simulated Environment. International Journal of Automotive Technology, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2020, pp. 719–728.
22.
SibiS.AyazH.KuhnsD. P.SirkinD. M.JuW.Monitoring Driver Cognitive Load Using Functional near Infrared Spectroscopy in Partially Autonomous Cars. In 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Gotenburg, Sweden, 2016.
23.
CaoZ.ChuangC.-H.KingJ.-K.LinC.-T.Multi-Channel EEG Recordings during a Sustained-Attention Driving Task. Scientific Data, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2019, p. 19.
24.
GharibS.Zare-SadeghiA.ZakerianS. A.HaidariM. R.The Neural Basis of Hazard Perception Differences between Novice and Experienced Drivers - an fMRI Study. EXCLI Journal, No. 19, 2020, pp. 547–566.
25.
TanidaK.PaoliniM.PöppelE.SilveiraS.Safety Feelings and Anticipatory Control: An fMRI Study on Safety and Risk Perception. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 57, 2018, pp. 108–114.
26.
LudwigK.SterzerP.KathmannN.HesselmannG.Differential Modulation of Visual Object Processing in Dorsal and Ventral Stream by Stimulus Visibility. Cortex, Vol. 83, 2016, pp. 113–123.
27.
HaynesJ.-D.DriverJ.ReesG.Visibility Reflects Dynamic Changes of Effective Connectivity between V1 and Fusiform Cortex. Neuron, Vol. 46, No. 5, 2005, pp. 811–821.
28.
TsubomiH.IkedaT.HanakawaT.HiroseN.FukuyamaH.OsakaN.Dissociable Neural Activations of Conscious Visibility and Attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2012, pp. 496–506.
29.
MaroisR.ChunM. M.GoreJ. C.A Common Parieto-Frontal Network Is Recruited Under Both Low Visibility and High Perceptual Interference Conditions. Journal of Neurophysiology, Vol. 92, No. 5, 2004, pp. 2985–2992.
30.
HawkinsH. L.HillyardS. A.LuckS. J.DowningC. J.MoulouaM.WoodwardD. P.Visual Attention Modulates Signal Detectability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 16, No. 4, 1990, pp. 802–811.
31.
RenQ.395 Million Vehicles, 481 Million Drivers! The Ministry of Public Security Releases 2021 National Data on Motor Vehicles and Drivers. Xinhua News Agency, Beijing, 2021.
32.
BednarzH. M.StavrinosD.SvancaraA. M.SherrodG. M.McManusB.DeshpandeH. D.KanaR. K.Executive Function Brain Network Activation Predicts Driving Hazard Detection in ADHD. Brain Topography, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2022, pp. 251–267.
33.
BednarzH. M.StavrinosD.SvancaraA. M.SherrodG. M.DeshpandeH. D.KanaR. K.Behind the Wheels with Autism and ADHD: Brain Networks Involved in Driving Hazard Detection. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 77, 2021, pp. 274–292.
34.
WeaverB. W.DeLuciaP. R.A Systematic Review and Meta: Analysis of Takeover Performance During Conditionally Automated Driving. Human Factors, Vol. 64, 2022, pp. 1227–1260.
35.
The Ministry of Transportation of China. The Question Bank of Driving Theory Part of the Driving Test. The Ministry of Transportation of China, Beijing, 2020.
36.
GenoveseC. R.LazarN. A.NicholsT.Thresholding of Statistical Maps in Functional Neuroimaging Using the False Discovery Rate. NeuroImage, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2002, pp. 870–878.
37.
CorbettaM.MiezinF.ShulmanG.PetersenS.A PET Study of Visuospatial Attention. The Journal of Neuroscience, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1993, pp. 1202–1226.
38.
CalhounV. D.PearlsonG. D.A Selective Review of Simulated Driving Studies: Combining Naturalistic and Hybrid Paradigms, Analysis Approaches, and Future Directions. NeuroImage, Vol. 59, No. 1, 2012, pp. 25–35.
39.
UchiyamaY.ToyodaH.SakaiH.ShinD.EbeK.SadatoN.Suppression of Brain Activity Related to a Car-Following Task with an Auditory Task: An fMRI Study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2012, pp. 25–37.
40.
de Oliveira FariaN.MerendaC.GreatbatchR.TanousK.SugaC.AkashK.MisuT.GabbardJ.The Effect of Augmented Reality Cues on Glance Behavior and Driver-Initiated Takeover on SAE Level 2 Automated-Driving. Proc., the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, 2021, pp. 1342–1346.
41.
WuY.Abdel-AtyM.ParkJ.ZhuJ.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.
42.
McKeefryD.BurtonM.VakrouC.BarrettB.MorlandA.Induced Deficits in Speed Perception by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of Human Cortical Areas V5/MT+ and V3A. Journal of Neuroscience, Vol. 28, No. 27, 2008, pp. 6848–6857.
43.
NavarroJ.ReynaudE.OsiurakF.Neuroergonomics of Car Driving: A Critical Meta-Analysis of Neuroimaging Data on the Human Brain behind the Wheel. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, Vol. 95, 2018, pp. 464–479.
44.
GauthierI.SkudlarskiP.GoreJ.AndersonA.Expertise for Cars and Birds Recruits Brain Areas Involved in Face Recognition. Nature neuroscience, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2000, pp. 191–197.
45.
TarrM. J.GauthierI.FFA: A Flexible Fusiform Area for Subordinate-Level Visual Processing Automatized by Expertise. Nature Neuroscience, Vol. 3, No. 8, 2000, pp. 764–769.
46.
DomenechP.KoechlinE.Executive Control and Decision-Making in the Prefrontal Cortex. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 1, 2015, pp. 101–106.
47.
NiendamT. A.LairdA. R.RayK. L.DeanY. M.GlahnD. C.CarterC. S.Meta-Analytic Evidence for a Superordinate Cognitive Control Network Subserving Diverse Executive Functions. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2012, pp. 241–268.
48.
BoisgueheneucF. D.LevyR.VolleE.SeassauM.DuffauH.KinkingnehunS.SamsonY.ZhangS.DuboisB.Functions of the Left Superior Frontal Gyrus in Humans: A Lesion Study. Brain, Vol. 129, No. Pt 12, 2006, pp. 3315–3328.
49.
JapeeS.HolidayK.SatyshurM. D.MukaiI.UngerleiderL. G.A Role of Right Middle Frontal Gyrus in Reorienting of Attention: A Case Study. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, Vol. 9, 2015, p. 23.
50.
GabrieliJ. D.PoldrackR. A.DesmondJ. E.The Role of Left Prefrontal Cortex in Language and Memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 95, No. 3, 1998, pp. 906–913.
51.
DapratiE.SiriguA.NicoD.Body and Movement: Consciousness in the Parietal Lobes. Neuropsychologia, Vol. 48, No. 3, 2010, pp. 756–762.
52.
ChenP.ChenF.ZhangL.MaX.PanX.Examining the Influence of Decorated Sidewaall in Road Tunnels Using fMRI Technology. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 99, 2020, p. 103362.
53.
HeD.KanaanD.DonmezB.In-Vehicle Displays to Support Driver Anticipation of Traffic Conflicts in Automated Vehicles. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 149, 2021, p. 105842.
54.
ShermanS. M.GuilleryR.Distinct Functions for Direct and Transthalamic Corticocortical Connections. Journal of Neurophysiology, Vol. 106, No. 3, 2011, pp. 1068–1077.
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.
