Different in-vehicle interface designs have been proposed to support drivers in operating vehicle automation systems. Measures of visual attention are particularly useful in the evaluation of such interfaces, especially in conditions when driving performance measures cannot be used, i.e., when the driver is not physically controlling the vehicle. In this paper, we present a literature review on visual attention measures in the assessment of in-vehicle interfaces to support the use of driving automation. This review was a preliminary pilot study for a larger, ongoing scoping review investigating visual attention and driving automation more broadly. Based on a systematic search of one engineering literature database, this review focused on driving automation that does not require the driver to physically control the vehicle but does require driver involvement in some capacity. The findings of this review contributed to the development of the larger review and can help identify future research trends.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhlströmC.GeorgoulasG.KircherK. (2021). Towards a context-dependent multi-buffer driver distraction detection algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.
2.
BorojeniS. S.ChuangL.HeutenW.BollS. (2016). Assisting drivers with ambient take-over requests in highly automated driving. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 237–244.
3.
BorojeniS. S.WeberL.HeutenW.BollS. (2018). From reading to driving: Priming mobile users for take-over situations in highly automated driving. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, Article 14.
4.
CabrallC. D. D.ErikssonA.DregerF.HappeeR.De WinterJ. (2019). How to keep drivers engaged while supervising driving automation? A literature survey and categorisation of six solution areas. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 20(3), 332–365.
5.
CabrallC. D. D.StapelJ. C. J.HappeeR.de WinterJ. C. F. (2020). Redesigning todays driving automation toward adaptive backup control with context-based and invisible interfaces. Human Factors, 62(2), 211–228.
6.
ClarkJ. R.StantonN. A.RevellK. M. A. (2019). Directability, eye-gaze, and the usage of visual displays during an automated vehicle handover task. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 67, 29–42.
7.
ClarkJ. R.StantonN. A.RevellK. M. A. (2020). Vocal guidance of visual gaze during an automated vehicle handover task. In StantonN. (Ed.), Advances in Human Factors of Transportation (Vol. 964, pp. 27–35). Springer International Publishing.
8.
de WinterJ.StantonN.EismaY. B. (2021). Is the take-over paradigm a mere convenience?Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 10.
9.
DonmezB.BoyleL. N.LeeJ. D. (2007). Safety implications of providing real-time feedback to distracted drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39(3), 581–590.
10.
DonmezB.BoyleL. N.LeeJ. D. (2008). Mitigating driver distraction with retrospective and concurrent feedback. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(2), 776–786.
ErikssonA.PetermeijerS. 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.
13.
FeierleA.BellerD.BenglerK. (2019). Head-up displays in urban partially automated driving: Effects of using augmented reality. 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference, ITSC, 1877–1882.
14.
FeldhütterA.SeglerC.BenglerK. (2018). Does shifting between conditionally and partially automated driving lead to a loss of mode awareness? In StantonN. (Ed.), International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (Vol. 597, pp. 730–741). Springer International Publishing.
15.
ForsterY.NaujoksF.NeukumA.HuesteggeL. (2017). Driver compliance to take-over requests with different auditory outputs in conditional automation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 109, 18–28.
16.
General Motors. (2018). 2019 Cadillac CT6 Owner’s Manual. General Motors LLC.
17.
GoldC.DamböckD.LorenzL.BenglerK. (2013). Take over! How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1938–1942.
18.
HeD.KanaanD.DonmezB. (2019). A taxonomy of strategies for supporting time-sharing with non-driving tasks in automated driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63(1), 2088–2092.
19.
HeD.KanaanD.DonmezB. (2021). In-vehicle displays to support driver anticipation of traffic conflicts in automated vehicles. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 149, Article 105842.
20.
HechtT.KratzertS.BenglerK. (2020). The effects of a predictive HMI and different transition frequencies on acceptance, workload, usability, and gaze behavior during urban automated driving. Information (Switzerland), 11(2), Article 73.
21.
HelldinT.FalkmanG.RiveiroM.DavidssonS. (2013). Presenting system uncertainty in automotive UIs for supporting trust calibration in autonomous driving. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 210–217.
22.
Hoekstra-AtwoodL.PrendezD.CampbellJ. L.RichardC. M. (2019). Some on-road glances are more equal than others: measuring engagement in the driving task. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63(1), 1986–1990.
23.
InagakiT.SheridanT. B. (2019). A critique of the SAE conditional driving automation definition, and analyses of options for improvement. Cognition, Technology and Work, 21(4), 569–578.
24.
KalbL.StreitL.BenglerK. (2018). What drivers make of directional maneuver information in a take-over scenario. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetic (SMC), 3859–3864.
25.
KaratasN.YoshikawaS.TamuraS.OtakiS.FunayamaR.OkadaM. (2017). Sociable driving agents to maintain driver’s attention in autonomous driving. 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 143–149.
26.
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 (DOT HS 810 594). Washington, DC.
27.
KraftA. K.NaujoksF.WörleJ.NeukumA. (2018). The impact of an in-vehicle display on glance distribution in partially automated driving in an on-road experiment. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 52, 40–50.
28.
KunzeA.SummerskillS. J.MarshallR.FiltnessA. J. (2019a). Automation transparency: implications of uncertainty communication for human-automation interaction and interfaces. Ergonomics, 62(3), 345–360.
29.
KunzeA.SummerskillS. J.MarshallR.FiltnessA. J. (2019b). Conveying uncertainties using peripheral awareness displays in the context of automated driving. Proceedings of 11th International ACM Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 329–341.
30.
LargeD. R.BurnettG.SalanitriD.LawsonA.BoxE. (2019). A longitudinal simulator study to explore drivers behaviour in level 3 automated vehicles. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 222–232.
31.
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 Annual Meeting, 1681–1685.
32.
LuZ.ZhangB.FeldhutterA.HappeeR.MartensM.De WinterJ. C. F. (2019). Beyond mere take-over requests: The effects of monitoring requests on driver attention, take-over performance, and acceptance. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 63, 22–37.
33.
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.
34.
PetermeijerS.DoubekF.de WinterJ. (2017). Driver response times to auditory, visual, and tactile take-over requests: A simulator study with 101 participants. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 1505–1510.
35.
PetermeijerS. M.CielerS.de WinterJ. C. F. (2017). Comparing spatially static and dynamic vibrotactile take-over requests in the driver seat. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 99, 218–227.
36.
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.
37.
SAE International. (2018). Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles (J3016).
38.
SchomigN.WiedemannK.NaujoksF.NeukumA.LeuchtenbergB.Vohringer-KuhntT. (2018). An augmented reality display for conditionally automated driving. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 137–141.
39.
StephensonA.EimontaiteI.Caleb-SollyP.AlfordC. (2020). The impact of a biological driver state monitoring system on visual attention during partially automated driving. In StantonN. (Ed.), Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation (Vol. 1212, pp. 193–200). Springer International Publishing.
40.
TelpazA.RhindressB.ZelmanI.TsimhoniO. (2017). Using a vibrotactile seat for facilitating the handover of control during automated driving. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction, 9(3), 17–33.
41.
UlahannanA.JenningsP.OliveiraL.BirrellS. (2020). Designing an adaptive interface: Using eye tracking to classify how information usage changes over time in partially automated vehicles. IEEE Access, 8, 16865–16875.
42.
VictorT. W.TivestenE.GustavssonP.JohanssonJ.SangbergF.Ljung AustM. (2018). Automation expectation mismatch: Incorrect prediction despite eyes on threat and hands on wheel. Human Factors, 60(8), 1095–1116.
43.
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.
44.
WeidnerF.BrollW. (2019). Smart S3D TOR: Intelligent warnings on large stereoscopic 3D dashboards during take-overs. Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays.
45.
WolfeB.SawyerB. D.RosenholtzR. (2020). Toward a theory of visual information acquisition in driving. Human Factors.
46.
WrightT. J.AgrawalR.SamuelS.WangY.ZilbersteinS.FisherD. L. (2018). Effective cues for accelerating young drivers time to transfer control following a period of conditional automation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 116, 14–20.
47.
YangY.KarakayaB.DominioniG. C.KawabeK.BenglerK. (2018). An HMI concept to improve driver’s visual behavior and situation awareness in automated vehicle. 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 650–655.
48.
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.
