Partially automated vehicles, in which automation performs parts of the driving task, introduce new challenges of automation monitoring and human-automation teaming to the driving experience. We describe a new method for measuring whether operators mentally represent automated task performance using a version of the joint task-switching (JTS) task paradigm. In the JTS task, an operator and a teammate take turns performing two intermixed tasks. Following takeover from the teammate, task-switching costs (slower responses following a task switch vs repetition) indicate that the operator mentally represents the teammate’s performance. We measured performance following task switches and repetitions with and without a takeover from automation. Switch costs disappeared following takeovers, indicating a lack of representation of the prior automated task. We discuss how task switch costs following takeovers can serve as indirect measures of whether operators mentally represent automated task performance in mixed automation situations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsB. D.BruynL. E. (2003). Trust in Automated Systems Literature Review. Human systems Incorporated, pp 1-136.
2.
AllportA.StylesE. A.HsiehS. (1994). Shifting Intentional Set: Exploring the Dynamic Control of Tasks.
3.
ArringtonC. M.AltmannE. M.CarrT. H. (2003). Tasks of a feather flock together: Similarity effects in task switching. Memory & Cognition, 31(5), 781-789.
4.
De WinterJ. C.HappeeR.MartensM. H.StantonN. A. (2014). Effects of adaptive cruise control and highly automated driving on workload and situation awareness: A review of the empirical evidence. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 27, 196-217.
5.
ErikssonA.StantonN. A. (2017). Takeover Time in Highly Automated Vehicles:Noncritical Transitions to and From Manual Control. Human Factors, 59(4), 689– 705.
6.
EndsleyM. R.BolteB.JonesD.2003. Designing for Situation Awareness: An Approach to User-Centered Design. Taylor Francis Group, Boca Raton.
7.
EndsleyM. R.JonesW. M. (1997) Situational Awareness Information Dominance and Information Warfare. United States Air Force Armstrong Laboratory.
8.
EndsleyM. R. (1999) Situation Awareness in Aviation Systems. Handbook of Aviation Human Factors, 11, 257-276.
9.
JianJ. Y.BisantzA. M.DruryC. G. (2000). Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4(1), 53-71.
10.
KieselA.SteinhauserM.WendtM.FalkensteinM.JostK.PhilippA.KochI. (2003) Control and interference in task-switching: A review. Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 136, 5, pp. 849–874.
11.
KnoblichG.ButterfillS.SebanzN. (2011). Psychological research on joint action: Theory and data. The psychology of learning and motivation, pp. 59–101.
12.
LitmanT. (2014). Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 28.
MorayN.InagakiT. (1999). Laboratory studies of trust between humans and machines in automated systems. Trans Inst MC, 21(4/5): 203-211.
15.
NessM. A. (2016) Acceptance of Self-driving Cars: An Examination of Idealized versus Realistic Portrayals with a Self-driving Car Acceptance Scale. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting, pp 1449-1453.
16.
NormanD. (1986) Cognitive engineering. in User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, Eds. Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Erlbaum, 1986, pp. 31–61.
17.
OnnaschL.WickensC. D.LiH.ManzeyD. (2014). Human performance consequences of stages and levels of automation: An integrated meta-analysis. Human factors, 56(3), 476-488.
18.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC. D. (2008) Situational Awareness, Mental Workload, and Trust in Automation: Viable, Empirically Supported Cognitive Engineering Constructs. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, Vol. 2, 2, pp. 140–160.
19.
ParasuramanR.MoulouaM.MolloyR.HilburnB. (1996). Monitoring of automated systems. Automation and human performance: Theory and applications, 91-115.
20.
RubinsteinJ.MeyerD.EvansJ. (2001) Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. J. Exp. Psychol., Human Perception Perf., Vol. 27, pp. 763–797.
21.
SalasE.CookeN. J.RosenM. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human factors, 50(3), 540-547.
22.
SalasE.StoutR. J.Cannon-BowersJ. A. (1994). The role of shared mental models in developing shared situational awareness. Situational awareness in complex systems, 297-304.
ScholtzJ.TheofanosM.AntonishekB. (2002) Theory and evaluation of human robot interactions. Proc. Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., pp. 125–143.
25.
SebanzN.KnoblichG.PrinzW. (2005). How two share a task: Co-representing stimulus-response mappings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1234–1246.
26.
SinghI. L.MolloyR.ParasuramanR. (1997). Automation-induced monitoring inefficiency: role of display location. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46(1), 17-30.
27.
TsaiC. C.KuoW. J.JingJ. T.HungD. L.TzengO. J. L.(2006). A common coding framework in self–other interaction: Evidence from joint action task. Experimental Brain Research, 175, pp: 353–362.
28.
WenkeD.AtmacaS.HolländerA.LiepeltR.BaessP.PrinzW. (2011). What is shared in joint action? Issues of co-representation, response conflict, and agent identification. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2, 147–172.
29.
WidyantiA.de WaardD.JohnsonA.MulderB. (2013). National culture moderates the influence of mental effort on subjective and cardiovascular measures. Ergonomics, 56(2), 182-194.
