Peripheral Monitoring of Traffic in Conditionally Automated Driving

Abstract

Conditionally automated vehicles (level 3) allow drivers to engage in visual, non-driving related tasks (NDRTs) while the automation is active. System limits require drivers to reengage in the dynamic driving task in take-over situations. If the NDRT is visually engaging, situation awareness (SA) necessary for a successful take-over can decrease. This study analyzed, if the SA of drivers increases while monitoring the surrounding traffic peripherally. A semi-transparent balloon game in the head-up display operationalized the engagement into a visual NDRT with the possibility of peripheral monitoring. In addition, participants without the possibility of monitoring due to simulated heavy fog (second group) were tested along with a third group that could monitor surroundings self-determined without a NDRT. The between-subject design included 57 participants. Results showed that self-determined monitoring leads to higher situation awareness compared to peripheral monitoring and no monitoring. This did not result in better take-over performances.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brockmyer

J. H.

Fox

C. M.

Curtiss

K. A.

McBroom

Burkhart

K. M.

Pidruzny

J. N.

(2009). The development of the Game Engagement Questionnaire: A measure of engagement in video game-playing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 624-634. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.016

Endsley

M. R.

(2015). Final Reflections: Situation Awareness Models and Measures. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 9(1), 101-111. doi:10.1177/1555343415573911

Endsley

M. R.

Kiris

E. O.

(1995). The Out-of-the-Loop Performance Problem and Level of Control in Automation. Human Factors, 37(2), 381-394. doi:10.1518/001872095779064555

Feldhütter

Gold

Schneider

Bengler

(2017). How the Duration of Automated Driving Influences Take-Over Performance and Gaze Behavior. In Schlick

C. M.

Duckwitz

Flemisch

Frenz

Kuz

Mertens

Mütze-Niewöhner

(Eds.), Advances in Ergonomic Design of Systems, Products and Processes: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of GfA 2016 (pp. 309-318). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Gold

Körber

Lechner

Bengler

(2016). Taking Over Control From Highly Automated Vehicles in Complex Traffic Situations: The Role of Traffic Density. Human Factors, 58(4), 642-652. doi:10.1177/0018720816634226

Gold

Naujoks

Radlmayr

Bellem

Jarosch

(2017). Testing Scenarios for Human Factors Research in Level 3 Automated Vehicles. In Stanton

N. A.

(Ed.), Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation: Proceedings of the AHFE 2017 International Conference on Human Factors in Transportation, July 17−21, 2017, The Westin Bonaventure Hotel, Los Angeles, California, USA (pp. 551-559). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Horrey

W. J.

Wickens

C. D.

Consalus

K. P.

(2006). Modeling drivers' visual attention allocation while interacting with in-vehicle technologies. Journal of experimental psychology. Applied, 12(2), 67–78. doi:10.1037/1076-898x.12.2.67

Körber

Bengler

(2014). Potential Individual Differences Regarding Automation Effects in Automated Driving. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the XV International Conference on Human Computer Interaction, Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, Spain.

Liu

Y.-C.

Wen

M.-H.

(2004). Comparison of head-up display (HUD) vs. head-down display (HDD): driving performance of commercial vehicle operators in Taiwan. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61(5), 679-697. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.06.002

10.

Merat

Jamson

A. H.

Lai

F. C. H.

Carsten

(2012). Highly Automated Driving, Secondary Task Performance, and Driver State. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54(5), 762–771. doi:10.1177/0018720812442087

11.

Radlmayr

Gold

Lorenz

Farid

Bengler

(2014). How Traffic Situations and Non-Driving Related Tasks Affect the Take-Over Quality in Highly Automated Driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 58(1), 2063-2067. doi:10.1177/1541931214581434

12.

Recarte

M. Á.

Pérez

Conchillo

Á.

Nunes

L. M.

(2008). Mental Workload and Visual Impairment: Differences between Pupil, Blink, and Subjective Rating. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11(2), 374-385. doi:10.1017/S1138741600004406

13.

Salmon

Stanton

N. A.

Gibbon

Jenkins

Walker

G. H.

(2009). Human Factors Methods and Sports Science: A Practical Guide: CRC Press.

14.

Society of Automotive Engineers International. (2016). J3016 -Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to on-road motor vehicle automated driving systems. In Surface Vehicle Recommended Practive.

15.

Taylor

(1990). Development of the Situational Awareness Rating Technique (SART) as a tool for aircrew systems design. Paper presented at the AGARD Conference Proceedings, CP478, Copenhagen, DK.

16.

Victor

T. W.

Harbluk

J. L.

Engström

J. A.

(2005). Sensitivity of eye-movement measures to in-vehicle task difficulty. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8(2), 167-190. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2005.04.014

17.

Wickens

C. D.

Hollands

J. G.

Banbury

Parasuraman

(2015). Engineering psychology & human performance: Psychology Press.