The Effects of Interruption on Takeover Performance in Automated Vehicles

Abstract

As autonomous driving technology developing, the role of human driver becomes a passive passenger in an automated vehicle. Drivers would perform non-driving related tasks instead of driving, especially multitasking.. However, most of studies did not considered multitasking as NDRTs. In this study, experiment considering self-interruption is conducted and investigate effects of interruption on takeover performance. To investigate effects of interruption on takeover performance, experiment using driving simulator was conducted. Watching a short video was selected as a NDRT and there were three conditions of NDRT according to self-interruption: ‘Baseline’, ‘Monitoring condition’, and ‘Smartphone condition’. Takeover performance was measured by eyes-on time and deactivation time. There was no statistically significant difference for eyes-on time depending on interruption. However, interruption has a significant effect on deactivation time. Also, it was more effective to use a smartphone during interruption.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bueno

Dogan

Selem

F. H.

Monacelli

Boverie

Guillaume

(2016, November). How different mental workload levels affect the take-over control after automated driving. In 2016 IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) (pp. 2040–2045). IEEE.

Capallera

de Salis

Meteier

Angelini

Carrino

Khaled

O. A.

Mugellini

(2019, September). Secondary task and situation awareness, a mobile application for conditionally automated vehicles. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications: Adjunct Proceedings (pp. 86–92).

Gerber

M. A.

Schroeter

Xiaomeng

Elhenawy

(2020, April). Self-Interruptions of Non-Driving Related Tasks in Automated Vehicles: Mobile vs Head-Up Display. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–9).

S. M.

Y. G.

(2018). How we can measure the nondriving-task engagement in automated driving: comparing flow experience and workload. Applied ergonomics, 67, 237–245.

Köhn

Gottlieb

Schermann

Krcmar

(2019, March). 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).

Marinik

Bishop

Fitchett

Morgan

J. F.

Trimble

T. E.

Blanco

(2014). Human factors evaluation of level 2 and level 3 automated driving concepts: Concepts of operation (No. DOT HS 812 044). United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Neubauer

Matthews

Saxby

(2014, September). Fatigue in the automated vehicle: do games and conversation distract or energize the driver?. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 2053–2057). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Radlmayr

Gold

Lorenz

Farid

Bengler

(2014, September). How traffic situations and non-driving related tasks affect the take-over quality in highly automated driving. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 2063–2067). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Rauffet

Botzer

Chauvin

Saïd

Tordet

(2020). The relationship between level of engagement in a non-driving task and driver response time when taking control of an automated vehicle. Cognition, Technology & Work, 22(4), 721–731.

10.

Vogelpohl

Kühn

Hummel

Gehlert

Vollrath

(2018). Transitioning to manual driving requires additional time after automation deactivation. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 55, 464–482.

11.

Wan

(2018). The effects of lead time of takeover request and nondriving tasks on taking-over control of automated vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 48(6), 582–591.

12.

Wandtner

Schömig

Schmidt

(2018). Effects of non-driving related task modalities on takeover performance in highly automated driving. Human factors, 60(6), 870–881.

13.

Zeeb

Buchner

Schrauf

(2015). What determines the take-over time? An integrated model approach of driver take-over after automated driving. Accident analysis & prevention, 78, 212–221.

14.

Zeeb

Buchner

Schrauf

(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.