Young drivers are involved in a significantly higher number of crashes than any other age group. Highly automated vehicles are expected to improve traffic safety and reduce human errors; however, driver needs to take over in situations where the automation fails. A driving simulation study was conducted with twenty-eight young drivers to investigate the effects of unreliable automation, different takeover time budgets (TOTBs), and secondary tasks on mental workload during takeover situations. Mental workload was measured using a combination of physiological and secondary task performance measures. Results suggested that when faced with critical incidents, young drivers experienced lower mental workload under 10s of TOTB as compared to 5s or 8s of TOTB especially when they were engaged in a demanding secondary task. In addition, drivers experienced higher mental workload when regaining the control of the vehicle in the automated mode than the manual driving condition.
BanksV. A.StantonN. A. (2016). Keep the driver in control: Automating automobiles of the future. Applied Ergonomics, 53, 389–395.
2.
BrookingsJ. B.WilsonG. F.SwainC. R. (1996). Psychophysiological responses to changes in workload during simulated air traffic control. Biological psychology, 42(3), 361–377.
3.
DonmezB.BoyleL. N.LeeJ. D. (2010). Differences in off-road glances: Effects on young drivers’ performance. Journal of transportation engineering, 136(5), 403–409.
4.
EngströmJ.JohanssonE.ÖstlundJ. (2005). Effects of visual and cognitive load in real and simulated motorway driving. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 8(2), 97–120.
5.
FisherD. L.LaurieN. E.GlaserR.ConnerneyK.PollatsekA.DuffyS. A.BrockJ. (2002). Use of a fixed-base driving simulator to evaluate the effects of experience and PC-based risk awareness training on drivers’ decisions. Human factors, 44(2), 287–302.
6.
GoldC.DamböckD.LorenzL.BenglerK. (2013). “Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting.
LansdownT. C.Brook-CarterN.KerslootT. (2004). Distraction from multiple in-vehicle secondary tasks: vehicle performance and mental workload implications. Ergonomics, 47(1), 91–104.
11.
LeeJ. D. (2007). Technology and teen drivers. Journal of safety research, 38(2), 203–213.
12.
LeeJ. D.ReganM. A.YoungK. L. (2008). What drives distraction? Distraction as a breakdown of multilevel control: CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA.
13.
LiangY.LeeJ. D. (2010). Combining cognitive and visual distraction: Less than the sum of its parts. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(3), 881–890.
14.
MarquartG.CabrallC.de WinterJ. (2015). Review of eye-related measures of drivers’ mental workload. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 2854–2861.
15.
MeratN.JamsonA. H.LaiF. C.CarstenO. (2012). Highly automated driving, secondary task performance, and driver state. Human factors, 54(5), 762–771.
16.
MokB.JohnsM.LeeK. J.MillerD.SirkinD.IveP.JuW. (2015). Emergency, automation off: Unstructured transition timing for distracted drivers of automated vehicles. Paper presented at the 2015 IEEE 18th international conference on intelligent transportation systems.
17.
MourantR. R.RockwellT. H. (1972). Strategies of visual search by novice and experienced drivers. Human factors, 14(4), 325–335.
18.
NaujoksF.BefeleinD.WiedemannK.NeukumA. (2017). A review of non-driving-related tasks used in studies on automated driving. Paper presented at the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics.
19.
OlsenE.LernerN.PerelM.Simons-MortonB. (2005). In-car electronic device use among teen drivers. Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board Meeting, Washington, DC.
20.
PoonJ.GjorgjievskiM.MogaI.RistevskiB. (2019). Quality and accuracy of information available on websites for distracted driving: qualitative analysis. Interactive journal of medical research, 8(4), e16154.
SaffarianM.De WinterJ. C.HappeeR. (2012). Automated driving: human-factors issues and design solutions. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting.
23.
SaffarzadehM.NadimiN.NaseralaviS.MamdoohiA. R. (2013). A general formulation for time-to-collision safety indicator. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Transport.
24.
ShahiniF.ZahabiM.PatranellaB.Mohammed Abdul RazakA. (2020). Police Officer Interactions with In-vehicle Technologies: An On-Road Investigation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.
25.
SternJ. A.BoyerD.SchroederD. (1994). Blink rate: a possible measure of fatigue. Human factors, 36(2), 285–297.
26.
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.
27.
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.
28.
WangL.HeX.ChenY. (2016). Quantitative relationship model between workload and time pressure under different flight operation tasks. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 54, 93–102.
29.
WinterJ. D.StantonN. A.PriceJ. S.MistryH. (2016). The effects of driving with different levels of unreliable automation on self-reported workload and secondary task performance. International journal of vehicle design, 70(4), 297–324.
30.
YoonS. H.JiY. G. (2019). Non-driving-related tasks, workload, and takeover performance in highly automated driving contexts. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 60, 620–631.
31.
YoonS. H.KimY. W.JiY. G. (2019). The effects of takeover request modalities on highly automated car control transitions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 123, 150–158.
