Driver Performance Model: I. Conceptual Framework

Abstract

A comprehensive model that combines the necessary aspects of vehicle characteristics, manual control theory, and human sensory and cognitive capabilities (and limitations) is needed to efficiently and effectively guide experiments, and to predict or assess overall driver performance. Such a model would enable Army program managers to rank competing workload configurations and scenarios in proposed vehicles, and to focus resources on the most promising. Ultimately such a model would replace or significantly reduce reliance on the current costly process: multiple hardware iterations of “design-test-fix.” Currently no such comprehensive model exists. This paper discusses a conceptual framework designed to encompass the relationships, conditions and constraints related to direct, indirect and teleoperated modes of driving, and so provides a guide or “road-map” for the construction and creation of a comprehensive driver performance model.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bles

Wertheim

A. H.

(2001). Appropriate use of virtual environments to minimise motion sickness. Paper No. 7 in the Proceedings of the Workshop of the (NATO) Research and Technology Organization Human Factors and Medicine Panel, “What is essential for virtual reality systems to meet military human performance goals?” Hull (Quebec), Canada: St. Joseph Ottawa/Hull.

Collins

D. J.

Piccione

Best

P.S.

(1998, February 18). Driver detection of drop-offs when using thermal and intensified imaging night vision devices, final report. Alexandria, VA: DCS Corporation.

Endsley

M. R.

(2000). Theoretical underpinnings of situation awareness: A critical review. In Endsley

M.R.

Garland

D. J.

(Eds.), Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement (pp. 5, 26), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gordon

D.A.

(1966). Experimental isolation of the driver's visual input. Human Factors, 8(2), 129–137.

Heimerl

J. M.

(2001). Driver Performance Model: 1. Conceptual Framework. (ARL-TR-2581; DTIC acquisition number: A397331), U. S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

Lee

J. D.

(1998). The utility of different types of models: Crew size evaluation in the maritime industry. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 1227–1231). Santa Monica, CA: The Human Factors Society.

McLane

R.C.

Wierwille

W.W.

(1975). The influence of motion and audio cues on driver performance in an automobile simulator. Human Factors, 17(5), 488–501.

Miller

D.P.

(1988). Distance and clearance perception using forward-looking vehicular television systems, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 1453–1457). Santa Monica, CA: The Human Factors Society.

Money

K.E.

(1970, Jan). Motion sickness. Physiological Review, 50(1). 1–39.

10.

Reason

(1978). Motion sickness: Some theoretical and practical considerations. Applied Ergonomics, 9(3), 163–167.

11.

Salas

Diskell

J. E.

Hughes

(1996). Introduction: Stress and Human Performance. In Stress and Human Performance, Diskell

J. E.

Salas

(Eds.), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates., pp. 13 28.

12.

Shinar

McDowell

E.D.

Rockwell

T.H.

(1977). Eye movements in curve negotiation, Human Factors, 19(1), 63–71.

13.

Yardly

(1992). Motion sickness and perception: A reappraisal of the sensory conflict approach. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 449–471.