Within human factors research of highly automated driving, in addition to examining the design of notifications of expected takeovers of vehicle control, understanding how drivers handle unexpected takeovers is of critical importance. Given a sufficient level of situational awareness has been shown as a premise for task performance in various domains, this study aims to establish a situational awareness measure in the context of highly automated driving using a simple platform for experimentation. In this study, we measured participants’ situational awareness when viewing a video of simulated automated system, and their time-to-takeover when vehicle automation failed unexpectedly (as indicated by an abnormal change of vehicle speed and lane position). The results verified the link between lower levels of situational awareness and longer time to respond to a takeover event, suggesting the potential use of the simple platform for experimentation and quick prototyping.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ClarkH.FengJ. (2016). Age differences in the takeover of vehicle control and engagement in non-driving-related activities in simulated driving with conditional automation. Accident Analysis & Prevention. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.08.027
2.
DruryJ.RiekL.RackliffeN. (2006). A decomposition of UAV-related situation awareness, Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on Human-robot interaction, 2006.
3.
EndsleyM. R. (1995a). A taxonomy of situation awareness errors. Human factors in aviation operations, 3(2), 287-292.
4.
EndsleyM. (1995b). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 32–64.
5.
EndsleyM. R. (1988, May). Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT). In Aerospace and Electronics Conference, 1988.NAECON 1988., Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 National (pp. 789-795). IEEE.
6.
HartelC. E.SmithK.PrinceC. (1991, April). Defining aircrew coordination: Searching mishaps for meaning. Paper presented at the Sixth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH.
7.
HorswillM. S.McKennaF. P. (2004). Drivers’ hazard perception ability: Situation awareness on the road. In BanburyS.TremblayS. (Eds.). A Cognitive Approach to Situation Awareness (pp.155-175). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
8.
JohannsdottirK. R.HerdmanC. M. (2010). The role of working memory in supporting drivers’ situation awareness for surrounding traffic. Human Factors, 52(6), 663-673. doi:10.1177/0018720810385427
9.
LitmanT. (2014). Autonomous vehicle implementation predictions. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 28.
10.
LouwT.MeratN.JamsonH. (2015). Engaging with highly automated driving: to be or not to be in the loop. In the Proceedings of the Eighth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design. Salt Lake City, UT.
11.
LorenzL.KerschbaumP.SchumannJ. (2014, September). Designing take over scenarios for automated driving: How does augmented reality support the driver to get back into the loop?. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 1681-1685). Sage CA : Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
12.
MaR.KaberD. B. (2005). Situation awareness and workload in driving while using adaptive cruise control and a cell phone. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35(10), 939-953.
13.
McKnightA.J.McKnightA.S. (1999). Multivariate analysis of age-related driver ability and performance deficits. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 31, 454.
14.
MeratN.JamsonA. H. (2009). Is Drivers’ Situation Awareness Influenced by a Fully Automated Driving Scenario?. In Human factors, security and safety. Shaker Publishing.
15.
MeratN.JamsonH.LaiF.CarstenO. (2012). Highly automated driving, secondary task performance and driver state. Human Factors, 54, 762-771.
16.
MeratN.JamsonA. H.LaiF. C.DalyM.CarstenO. M. (2014). Transition to manual: Driver behaviour when resuming control from a highly automated vehicle. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 27, 274-282.
17.
MillerD.SunA.JohnsM.IveH.SirkinD.AichS.JuW. (2015). Distraction becomes engagement in automated driving. In the Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1676-1680.
18.
NeubauerC.MatthewsG.SaxbyD. (2012). The effects of cell phone use and automation on driver performance and subjective state in simulated driving. In the Proceedings of 56th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1987–1991
19.
ParasuramanR.SheridanT. B.WickensC. D. (2008). Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: Viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 2(2), 140-160.
WickensC. D.XuX. (2002). Automation trust, reliability and attention (Tech. Rep.AHFD-0214/MAAD-02-2). Savoy: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Lab.
22.
ZeebK.BuchnerA.SchraufM. (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 and Prevention, 92, 230-239
