The completion of the driving task by Level 3 (L3) Automated Driving Systems (ADS) allows drivers to turn their attention away from the road and direct it towards other activities; however, the driver must remain receptive to requests to intervene (RTI) and be prepared to complete the driving task upon deactivation of the driving automation. This transfer of control is called a takeover. The objectives of this research activity were to understand the human factors underlying driver disengagement while using L3 ADS and to identify factors influencing takeover quality and performance when the ADS-equipped vehicle has exited its operational design domain. A structured, comprehensive literature review approach was used to synthesize findings in the following areas: common measures used to assess takeover performance, factors that affect takeovers, and strategies that improve driver takeover performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
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.
2.
BakshiK. (2019). An Examination of Drivers’ Responses to Take-over Requests with Different Warning Systems During Conditional Automated Driving.
3.
BlancoM.AtwoodJ.VasquezH. M.TrimbleT. E.FitchettV. L.RadlbeckJ.… AdministrationN. H. T. S. (2015). Human Factors Evaluation of Level 2 and Level 3 Automated Driving Concepts.
4.
BlommerM.CurryR.KochharD.SwaminathanR.TalamontiW.TijerinaL. (2015). The effects of a scheduled driver engagement strategy in automated driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2015-Janua, 1681–1685.
5.
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.
6.
BorowskyA.Oron-GiladT. (2016). The effects of automation failure and secondary task on drivers’ ability to mitigate hazards in highly or semi-automated vehicles. Advances in Transportation Studies, 1, 59–70.
7.
Cadillac. (2020). CT6 SUPER CRUISETM Convenience & Personalization Guide.
DoganE.HonnêtV.MasfrandS.GuillaumeA. (2019). Effects of non-driving-related tasks on takeover performance in different takeover situations in conditionally automated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 62, pp 494-504.
10.
EndsleyM. R.KirisE. O. (1995). The Out-of-the-Loop Performance Problem and Level of Control in Automation. Human Factors, 37(2), 381-394.
11.
ForsterY.NaujoksF.NeukumA.HuesteggeL. (2017). Driver compliance to take-over requests with different auditory outputs in conditional automation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 109(February), 18–28.
12.
GeitnerC.BiondiF.SkrypchukL.JenningsP.BirrellS. (2019). The comparison of auditory, tactile, and multimodal warnings for the effective communication of unexpected events during an automated driving scenario. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 65, 23–33.
13.
GonçalvesR. C.QuaresmaM.RodriguesC. M. A. (2017). Approaches for loss of vigilance in vehicle automation: A metaanalytical study. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2017-Octob, 1871–1875.
14.
HeD.DonmezB. (2019). Influence of Driving Experience on Distraction Engagement in Automated Vehicles. Transportation Research Record.
15.
HergethS.LorenzL.KremsJ. F. (2017). Prior Familiarization with Takeover Requests Affects Drivers’ Takeover Performance and Automation Trust. Human Factors, 59(3), 457–470.
16.
HuangG.SteeleC.ZhangX.PittsB. J. (2019). Multimodal Cue Combinations: A Possible Approach to Designing In-Vehicle Takeover Requests for Semi-autonomous Driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63(1), pp 1739-1743.
JaroschO.BellemH.BenglerK. (2019). Effects of Task-Induced Fatigue in Prolonged Conditional Automated Driving. Human Factors, 61(7), pp 1186-1199.
19.
KunzeA.SummerskillS. J.MarshallR.FiltnessA. J. (2019). Automation transparency: implications of uncertainty communication for human-automation interaction and interfaces. Ergonomics, 62(3), 345–360.
20.
LiS.BlytheP.GuoW.NamdeoA.EdwardsS.GoodmanP.HillG. (2019). Evaluation of the effects of age-friendly human-machine interfaces on the driver’s takeover performance in highly automated vehicles. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 67, 78–100.
21.
LouwT.KuoJ.RomanoR.RadhakrishnanV.LennéM. G.MeratN. (2019). Engaging in NDRTs affects drivers’ responses and glance patterns after silent automation failures. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 62, 870–882.
22.
LouwT.MeratN. (2017). Are you in the loop? Using gaze dispersion to understand driver visual attention during vehicle automation. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 76, 35–50.
23.
LuZ.ZhangB.FeldhütterA.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.
24.
ManzeyD.BahnerJ. E.HueperA.-D. (2006). Misuse of Automated Aids in Process Control: Complacency, Automation Bias and Possible Training Interventions. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(3), 220–224.
25.
McCallR.McGeeF.MeschtscherjakovA.LouvetonN.EngelT. (2016). Towards a taxonomy of autonomous vehicle handover situations. AutomotiveUI 2016 - 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Proceedings, 193–200.
26.
MeratN.SeppeltB.LouwT.EngströmJ.LeeJ. D.JohanssonE.GreenC. A.KatazakiS.MonkC.ItohM.McGeheeD.SundaT.UnouraK.VictorT.SchiebenA.KeinathA. (2019). The “Outof-the-Loop” concept in automated driving: proposed definition, measures and implications. Cognition, Technology and Work, 21(1), 87– 98.
27.
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 & Prevention, 121, pp 28-42.
28.
NaujoksF.PuruckerC.WiedemannK.MarbergerC. (2019). Noncritical State Transitions During Conditionally Automated Driving on German Freeways: Effects of Non–Driving Related Tasks on Takeover Time and Takeover Quality. Human Factors, 61(4), pp 596613.
29.
NeesM. A.HelbeinB.PorterA. (2016). Speech Auditory Alerts Promote Memory for Alerted Events in a Video-Simulated Self-Driving Car Ride. Human Factors, 58(3), 416–426.
30.
NilssonJ.FalconeP.VinterJ. (2014). Safe Transitions From Automated to Manual Driving Using Driver Controllability Estimation. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems16, 4: 1806– 1816.
31.
NobleA. M. (2020). Behavioral Adaptation to Driving Automation Systems: Guidance for Consumer Education. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
32.
NobleA. M.KlauerS. G.MachianiS. G.ManserM. P. (2020). Importance of Training for Automated, Connected, and Intelligent Vehicle Systems. In Handbook of Human Factors for Automated, Connected and Intelligent Vehicles (p. 26). Taylor & Francis.
33.
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.
34.
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(February), 204–215.
35.
PetersenL.RobertL.YangX. J.TilburyD. (2019). Situational Awareness, Driver’s Trust in Automated Driving Systems and Secondary Task Performance. SAE International Journal of Connected and Automated Vehicles, 2(2), pp 129-141
36.
ReimerB.PettinatoA.FridmanL.LeeJ.MehlerB.SeppeltB.ParkJ.IagnemmaK. (2016). Behavioral impact of drivers’ roles in automated driving. AutomotiveUI 2016 - 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Proceedings, 217–224.
37.
SAE International. (2021). Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles (SAE J3016). SAE International.
38.
ShawE.LargeD. R.BurnettG. (2020). Towards Future Driver Training: Analysing Human Behaviour in Level 3 Automated Cars. Contemporary Ergonomics & Human Factors, April, 59–66.
39.
ShullE.GasparJ. G.SchmittR.VeceraS., (SaferSim), S.R.U.S.U.T.C., & Iowa, U. of (2019). Using Human-Machine Interfaces to Convey Feedback in Automated Vehicles.
40.
SinghI. L.MolloyR.ParasuramanR. (1993a). Automation- Induced “Complacency”: Development of the Complacency-Potential Rating Scale. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3:2, 111-122.
41.
SlavinR. E. (1987). Best-evidence synthesis: Why less is more. Educational Researcher, 16(4), 15-16.
42.
StantonN. A.YoungM. S. (2005) Driver behaviour with adaptive cruise control. Ergonomics, 48:10, 1294-1313,
43.
StrandN.NilssonJ.KarlssonI. C. M. A.NilssonL. (2014). Semi-automated versus highly automated driving in critical situations caused by automation failures. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 27(PB), 218–228.
TraskS.StewartM.KerwinT.Midlam-MohlerS. (2019). Effectiveness of warning signals in semi-autonomous vehicles. SAE Technical Papers, 2019-April(April).
46.
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.
47.
VlakveldW.van NesN.de BruinJ.VissersL.van der KroftM. (2018). Situation awareness increases when drivers have more time to take over the wheel in a Level 3 automated car: A simulator study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 58.
48.
WalchM.MühlK.KrausJ.StollT.BaumannM.WeberM. (2017) From Car-Driver-Handovers to Cooperative Interfaces: Visions for Driver–Vehicle Interaction in Automated Driving. In: MeixnerG.MüllerC. (eds) Automotive User Interfaces. Human–Computer Interaction Series. Springer, Cham.
49.
WandtnerB.SchömigN.SchmidtG. (2018). Secondary task engagement and disengagement in the context of highly automated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 58, 253–263.
50.
WintersbergerP.RienerA.SchartmüllerC.FrisonA. K. A.-K.WeiglK. (2018). Let me finish before I take over: Towards attention aware device integration in highly automated vehicles. Proceedings 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, September, 53–65.
51.
WongP. N. Y.BrumbyD. P.Ramesh BabuH. VKobayashiK. (2019). Voices in self-driving cars should be assertive to more quickly grab a distracted driver’s attention. Proceedings -11th International ACM Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, AutomotiveUI2019, 165–176.
52.
WuC.WuH.LyuN.ZhengM. (2019). Take-over performance and safety analysis under different scenarios and secondary tasks in conditionally automated driving. IEEE Access, 7, 136924–136933.
53.
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, pp 620-631.
54.
YoonS. H.KimY. W.JiY. G. (2019). The effects of takeover request modalities on highly automated car control transitions. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 123(November2018), 150–158.
