Driver distraction is one of the leading causes of vehicle crashes. The introduction of higher levels of vehicle control automation is expected to alleviate the negative effects of distraction by delegating the driving task to automation, thus enabling drivers to engage in non-driving-related tasks more safely. However, before fully automated vehicles are realized, drivers are still expected to play a supervisory role and intervene with the driving task if necessary while potentially having more spare capacity for engaging in non-driving-related tasks. Traditional distraction mitigation perspectives need to be shifted for automated vehicles from mainly preventing the occurrence of non-driving-related tasks to dynamically coordinating time-sharing between driving and non-driving-related tasks. In this paper, we provide a revised and expanded taxonomy of driver distraction mitigation strategies, discuss how the different strategies can be used in an automated driving context, and propose directions for future research in supporting time-sharing in automated vehicles.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltmannE. M.TraftonJ. G. (2002). Memory for goals: an activation-based model. Cognitive Science, 26(1), 39–83.
2.
BahnerJ. E.HüperA.-D.ManzeyD. (2008). Misuse of automated decision aids: Complacency, automation bias and the impact of training experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(9), 688–699.
3.
BazilinskyyP.PetermeijerS. M.PetrovychV.DodouD.de WinterJ. C. F. (2018). Take-over requests in highly automated driving: A crowdsourcing survey on auditory, vibrotactile, and visual displays. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 56, 82–98.
4.
BeggiatoM.KremsJ. F. (2013). The evolution of mental model, trust and acceptance of adaptive cruise control in relation to initial information. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 18, 47–57.
5.
BenloucifM. A.SentouhC.FlorisJ.SimonP.PopieulJ.-C. (2017). Online adaptation of the Level of Haptic Authority in a lane keeping system considering the driver’s state. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 61, 107-119.
6.
BorojeniS. S.AliA. E.HeutenW.BollS. (2016). Peripheral light cues for in-vehicle task resumption. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction - NordiCHI ’16 (pp. 1–4). Gothenburg, Sweden: ACM Press.
7.
BreznitzS. (1984). Cry Wolf: The Psychology of False Alarms. New York: Psychology Press.
8.
ChenH.-Y. W.DonmezB. (2016). What drives technology-based distractions? A structural equation model on social-psychological factors of technology-based driver distraction engagement. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 91, 166–174.
9.
CunninghamM. L.ReganM. A. (2018). Driver distraction and inattention in the realm of automated driving. IET Intelligent Transport Systems, 12(6), 407–413.
10.
de WinterJ. C. F.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.
11.
DingusT. A.KlauerS. G.NealeV. L.PetersenA.LeeS. E.SudweeksJ.. . . KniplingR. R. (2006). The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, Phase II-Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment (No. DOT HS 810 593). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
12.
DonmezB.BoyleL. N.LeeJ. D. (2006). The Impact of Distraction Mitigation Strategies on Driving Performance. Human Factors, 48(4), 785–804.
13.
DonmezB.BoyleL.LeeJ. (2008a). Designing feedback to mitigate distraction. In ReganM.LeeJ.YoungK. (Eds.), Driver Distraction (pp. 519–531). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
14.
DonmezB.BoyleL. N.LeeJ. D. (2008b). Mitigating driver distraction with retrospective and concurrent feedback. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(2), 776–786.
15.
DonmezB.BoyleL.LeeJ. D. (2003). Taxonomy of mitigation strategies for driver distraction. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 47(16), 1865–1869.
16.
GoldC.DamböckD.LorenzL.BenglerK.(2013). “Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop? In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 57(1), pp. 1938–1942.
17.
HeD.DonmezB. (in press). Influence of driving experience on distraction engagement in automated vehicles. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. doi: 10.1177/0361198119843476.
18.
HeD.LiuC. C.DonmezB.PlataniotisK. N. (2017). Assessing high cognitive load in drivers through Electroencephalography. In Proceedings of Transportation Research Board 96th Annual Meeting (pp. 17-02615), Washington DC, United States.
19.
JungT.KaßC.ZapfD.HechtH. (2019). Effectiveness and user acceptance of infotainment-lockouts: A driving simulator study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 60, 643–656.
20.
KlauerS. G.DingusT. A.NealeV. L.SudweeksJ. D.RamseyD. J. (2006). The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data (No. DOT HS 810 594). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
21.
KöhnT.GottliebM.SchermannM.KrcmarH. (2019). Improving take-over quality in automated driving by interrupting non-driving tasks. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 510-517). New Yor: ACM Press.
22.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80.
23.
LitmanT. (2018). Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning (Report). Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
24.
LouwT.MarkkulaG.BoerE.MadiganR.CarstenO.MeratN. (2017). Coming back into the loop: Drivers’ perceptual-motor performance in critical events after automated driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 108, 9–18.
25.
MeratN.SeppeltB.LouwT.EngströmJ.LeeJ. D.JohanssonE.. . . KeinathA. (2018). The “Out-of-the-Loop” concept in automated driving: proposed definition, measures and implications. Cognition, Technology & Work, 21(1), 87-98.
26.
MerrikhpourM.DonmezB. (2017). Designing feedback to mitigate teen distracted driving: A social norms approach. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 104, 185–194.
27.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2013a). Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
28.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2013b). Visual-manual NHTSA driver distraction guidelines for in-vehicle electronic devices. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
29.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2016). Visual-manual NHTSA driver distraction guidelines for portable and aftermarket devices. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
30.
NaujoksF.ForsterY.WiedemannK.NeukumA. (2017). Improving usefulness of automated driving by lowering primary task interference through HMI design. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2017, 1–12.
31.
NaujoksF.PuruckerC.WiedemannK.NeukumA.WolterS.SteigerR. (2017). Driving performance at lateral system limits during partially automated driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 108, 147–162.
32.
Nissan. (2017). 2018 Leaf Owner’s Manual. Nissan North America, Inc.
33.
ParasuramanR.MolloyR.SinghI. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced “complacency.”The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(1), 1–23.
34.
PayreW.CestacJ.DangN.-T.VienneF.DelhommeP. (2017). Impact of training and in-vehicle task performance on manual control recovery in an automated car. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 46, 216–227.
35.
PolitisI.BrewsterS.PollickF. (2017). Using multimodal displays to signify critical handovers of control to distracted autonomous car drivers. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction, 9(3), 1–16.
RobertsS. C.GhazizadehM.LeeJ. D. (2012). Warn me now or inform me later: Drivers’ acceptance of real-time and post-drive distraction mitigation systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70(12), 967–979.
38.
SAE International. (2018). Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to On-Road Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems (Standard No. J3016_201806). SAE International.
39.
SAE International. (2016). Human Factors Definitions for Automated Driving and Related Research Topics (Standard No. J3114_201612). SAE International.
40.
SarterN. B.WoodsD. D. (1995). How in the world did we ever get into that mode? Mode error and awareness in supervisory control. Human Factors, 37(1), 5–19.
41.
SheridanT. B.VerplankW. L. (1978). Humans and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology.
42.
ThornE.KimmelS.ChakaM. (2018). A Framework for Automated Driving System Testable Cases and Scenarios (Report No. DOT HS 812 623; p. 180). Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
43.
VuralE.CetinM.ErcilA.LittlewortG.BartlettM.MovellanJ. (2007). Drowsy driver detection through facial movement analysis. In International Workshop on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 6-18). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
44.
WandtnerB.SchömigN.SchmidtG. (2018). Effects of non-driving related task modalities on takeover performance in highly automated driving. Human Factors, 60(6), 870–881.
45.
XieJ. Y.ChenH.-Y. W.DonmezB. (2016). Gaming to safety: Exploring feedback gamification for mitigating driver distraction. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60(1), 1884–1888.
46.
ZeebK.BuchnerA.SchraufM. (2015). What determines the take-over time? An integrated model approach of driver take-over after automated driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 78, 212-221.
47.
ZeebK.BuchnerA.SchraufM. (2016). Is take-over time all that matters? The impact of visual-cognitive load on driver take-over quality after conditionally automated driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 92, 230–239.
