New automated driving systems are constantly being developed and integrated into vehicles. At the current state of technology, these features still require drivers to monitor performance and resume control when required by the systems. To cue drivers to take control, a takeover request (TOR) is presented with auditory, visual, and haptic cues. To characterize current TOR practices, a literature review was conducted to review types of human-machine interfaces (HMI’s) and their associated message presentation. Twenty-six articles were identified after searching keywords across journal articles and conference proceedings. HMIs and message types were identified and classified. Results indicated that TORs are more commonly used as general alerts to gain driver attention to driving tasks, rather than to request drivers to engage in a specific action or explain context of the TOR. Literature suggests that future systems may focus more on not only alerting drivers but providing additional context to those alerts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BennettK. B.FlachJ. M. (2011). Display and interface design: Subtle science, exact art. CRC Press.
2.
BlommerM.CurryR.SwaminathanR.TijerinaL.TalamontiW.KochharD. (2017). Driver brake vs. Steer response to sudden forward collision scenario in manual and automated driving modes. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 45, 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.11.006
3.
DoganE.RahalM. C.DeborneR.DelhommeP.KemenyA.PerrinJ. (2017). Transition of control in a partially automated vehicle: Effects of anticipation and non-driving-related task involvement. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 46, 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.01.012
4.
ErikssonA.BanksV. A.StantonN. A. (2017). Transition to manual: Comparing simulator with on-road control transitions. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 102, 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.03.011
5.
ErikssonAPetermeijerS. M.ZimmermannM.De WinterJ. C. F.BenglerK. J.StantonN. A. (2019). Rolling out the red (and green) carpet: Supporting driver decision making in automation-to-manual transitions. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 49(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2018.2883862
6.
ErikssonAStantonN. A. (2017a). Driving performance after self-regulated control transitions in highly automated vehicles. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 59(8), 1233–1248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817728774
7.
ErikssonAStantonN. A. (2017b). Takeover time in highly automated vehicles: Noncritical transitions to and frommanual control. Human Factors, 59(4), 689–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816685832
8.
HergethS.LorenzL.KremsJ. F. (2017). Prior familiarization with takeover requests affects drivers’ takeover performance and automation trust. Human Factors, 59(3), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816678714
9.
JohnsM.MillerD. B.SunA. C.BaughmanS.ZhangT.JuW. (2015). The driver has control: Exploring driving performance with varying automation capabilities. Proceedings of the Eighth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, 400–406.
10.
KooJ.KwacJ.JuW.SteinertM.LeiferL.NassC. (2015). Why did my car just do that? Explaining semi-autonomous driving actions to improve driver understanding, trust, and performance. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 9(4), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-014-0227-2
11.
KörberM.PraschL.BenglerK. (2018). Why do i have to drive now? Post hoc explanations of takeover requests. Human Factors, 60(3), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817747730
12.
LangloisS.SoualmiB. (2016). Augmented reality versus classical HUD to take over from automated driving: An aid to smooth reactions and to anticipate maneuvers. IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Proceedings, ITSC, 1571–1578. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2016.7795767
13.
LorenzL.KerschbaumP.SchumannJ. (2014). Designing take over scenarios for automated driving: How does augmented reality support the driver to get back into the loop?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2014 (January), 1681–1685. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581351
14.
LouwT.MarkkulaG.BoerE.MadiganR.CarstenO.MeratN. (2017). Coming back into the loop: Drivers’ perceptual-motor performance in critical events after automated driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 108(February), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.08.011
15.
MelcherV.RauhS.DiederichsF.WidlroitherH.BauerW. (2015). Take-Over Requests for automated driving. In 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE) (Vol. 3, pp. 2867–2873). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.788
16.
MerendaC.KimH.TanousK.GabbardJ. L.FeichtlB.MisuT.SugaC.(2018). Augmented reality interface design approaches for goal-directed and stimulus-driven driving tasks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(11), 2875–2885
17.
MeratN.JamsonA. H.LaiF. C. H.DalyM.CarstenO. M. J. (2014). Transition to manual: Driver behaviour when resuming control from a highly automated vehicle. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 27(PB), 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.09.005
18.
MokB. K. J.JohnsM.LeeK. J.IveH. P.MillerD.JuW. (2015). Timing of unstructured transitions of control in automated driving. In IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Proceedings (Vol. August, pp. 1167–1172). https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2015.7225841
19.
MorganP.AlfordC.ParkhurstG. (2016). Handover issues in autonomous driving: A literature review. Project Report.
20.
NaujoksF.HöflingS.PuruckerC.ZeebK. (2018). From partial and high automation to manual driving: Relationship between non-driving related tasks, drowsiness and take-over performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 121(August), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.08.018
21.
PetermeijerS.BazilinskyyP.BenglerK.de WinterJ. (2017). Take-over again: Investigating multimodal and directional TORs to get the driver back into the loop. Applied Ergonomics, 62, 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.02.023
22.
RadlmayrJ.GoldC.LorenzL.FaridM.BenglerK. (2014). How traffic situations and non-driving related tasks affect the take-over quality in highly automated driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 58(1), 2063–2067. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581434
23.
RocheF.SomieskiA.BrandenburgS. (2019). Behavioral Changes to repeated takeovers in highly automated driving: effects of the takeover-request design and the nondriving-related task modality. Human Factors, 61(5), 839–849. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818814963
24.
SAE. (2018). J3016-Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles.
25.
SchartmüllerC.RienerA.WintersbergerP.FrisonA.-K. (2018). Workaholistic: On balancing typing- and handover-performance in automated driving. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, MobileHCI’18, Article No. 16, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3229434.3229459
26.
VogelpohlT.GehlmannF.VollrathM. (2019). Task interruption and control recovery strategies after take-over requests emphasize need for measures of situation awareness. Human Factors. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819866976
27.
VogelpohlT.KühnM.HummelT.GehlertT.VollrathM. (2018). Transitioning to manual driving requires additional time after automation deactivation. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 55, 464–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.03.019
28.
WanJ.WuC. (2018). The effects of lead time of take-over request and nondriving tasks on taking-over control of automated vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 48(6), 582–591.
29.
WandtnerB.SchömigN.SchmidtG. (2018). Effects of non-driving related task modalities on takeover performance in highly automated driving. Human Factors, 60(6), 870–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818768199
30.
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 and Prevention, 92, 230–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.04.002
