Advances in automated driving systems (ADSs) have shifted the primary responsibility of controlling a vehicle from human drivers to automation. Framing driving a highly automated vehicle as teamwork can reveal practical requirements and design considerations to support the dynamic driver–ADS relationship. However, human–automation teaming is a relatively new concept in ADS research and requires further exploration. We conducted two literature reviews to identify concepts related to teaming and to define the driver–ADS relationship, requirements, and design considerations. The first literature review identified coordination, cooperation, and collaboration (3Cs) as core concepts to define driver–ADS teaming. Based on these findings, we propose the panarchy framework of 3Cs to understand drivers’ roles and relationships with automation in driver–ADS teaming. The second literature review identified main challenges for designing driver–ADS teams. The challenges include supporting mutual communication, enhancing observability and directability, developing a responsive ADS, and identifying and supporting the interdependent relationship between the driver and ADS. This study suggests that the teaming concept can promote a better understanding of the driver–ADS team where the driver and automation require interplay. Eventually, the driver–ADS teaming frame will lead to adequate expectations and mental models of partially automated vehicles.
AbbinkD. A.CarlsonT.MulderM.De WinterJ. C. F.AminravanF.GiboT. L.BoerE. R. (2018). A topology of shared control systems-finding common ground in diversity. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 48(5), 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2018.2791570
2.
AbbinkD. A.MulderM.BoerE. R. (2012). Haptic shared control: Smoothly shifting control authority?Cognition, Technology and Work, 14(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-011-0192-5
3.
AbrahamH.McAnultyH.MehlerB.ReimerB. (2017). Case study of today’s automotive dealerships: Introduction and delivery of advanced driver assistance systems. Transportation Research Record, 2660(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.3141/2660-02
4.
BedwellW. L.WildmanJ. L.DiazGranadosD.SalazarM.KramerW. S.SalasE. (2012). Collaboration at work: An integrative multilevel conceptualization. Human Resource Management Review, 22(2), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.11.007
5.
BellerJ.HeesenM.VollrathM. (2013). Improving the driver–automation interaction: An approach using automation uncertainty. Human Factors, 55(6), 1130–1141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813482327
6.
BiesterL. (2009). Cooperative automation in automobiles. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
7.
BratmanM. E. (1992). Shared cooperative activity. The Philosophical Review, 101(2), 327–341. https://doi.org/10.2307/2185537
8.
CalhounG. L.RuffH. A.BehymerK. J.FrostE. M. (2018). Human-autonomy teaming interface design considerations for multi-unmanned vehicle control. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 19(3), 321–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2017.1315751
9.
CarstenO.MartensM. H. (2019). How can humans understand their automated cars? HMI principles, problems and solutions. Cognition, Technology and Work, 21(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0484-0
10.
CastellanoA.FossanettiM.LandiniE.TangoF.MontanariR. (2020). Automation as driver companion: findings of AutoMate project. In International Conference on Intelligent Human Systems Integration, Modena, Italy, 19–21 February, 2020, 1048–1054
ChristoffersenK.WoodsD. D. (2002). How to make automated systems team players. Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research, 2, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3601(02)02003-9
14.
CohenP. R.LevesqueH. J.SmithI. (1997). On team formation. In Holmstrom-HintikkaG.TuomelaR. (Eds.), Contemporary action theory. Kluwer Academic. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315820873-11
CookeN.DemirM.HuangL. (2020). A framework for human-autonomy team research. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2020, 134–146
17.
DemirM.McNeeseN. J.CookeN. J. (2017). Team situation awareness within the context of human-autonomy teaming. Cognitive Systems Research, 46(C), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2016.11.003
18.
EndsleyM. R. (2017). From here to autonomy: Lessons learned from human–automation research. Human Factors, 59(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816681350
19.
FaatzA.ZimmermannB.GodehardtE. (2009). Luhmann’s slip box--What can we learn from the device for knowledge representation in requirements engineering? In Second International Workshop on Managing Requirements Knowledge, Atlanta, GA, USA, 01 September 2009, 1–3
20.
FeldhütterA.HärtwigN.KurpiersC.HernandezJ. M.BenglerK. (2018). Effect on mode awareness when changing from conditionally to partially automated driving. In Congress of the international ergonomics association (pp. 314–324) Springer International Publishing
21.
FlemischF.AbbinkD. A.ItohM.Pacaux-LemoineM. P.WeßelG. (2019). Joining the blunt and the pointy end of the spear: Towards a common framework of joint action, human–machine cooperation, cooperative guidance and control, shared, traded and supervisory control. Cognition, Technology and Work, 21(4), 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00576-1
22.
FlemischF.AdamsC. A.ConwayS. R.GoodrichK. H.PalmerM. T.SchutteP. C. (2003). The H-metaphor as a guideline for vehicle automation and interaction. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Hampton, VA.
23.
FlemischF.BenglerK.BubbH.WinnerH.BruderR. (2014). Towards cooperative guidance and control of highly automated vehicles: H-mode and conduct-by-wire. Ergonomics, 57(3), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.869355
24.
FlemischF.KelschJ.LöperC.SehiebenA.SchindlerJ.HeesenM. (2008). Cooperative control and active interfaces for vehicle assistance and automation. In FISITA World Automotive Congress, Munich, Germany, 2008,
25.
FongT.ThorpeC.BaurC. (1999). Collaborative control: A robot-centric model for vehicle teleoperation. In Proceedings of AAAI ’99 Spring Symposium on Agents with Adjustable Autonomy, Stanford, CA, USA, March 1999, 210–219. www.aaai.org
26.
FongTThorpeC.BaurC. (2001). Collaboration, dialogue, and human-robot interaction. In 10th International Symposium of Robotics Research, Lorne, Victoria, Australia, 2001, 255–268.
27.
GammaE.HelmR.JohnsonR. E.VlissidesJ. (1995). Design patterns: Elements of reusable object-oriented software. Addison-Wesley
28.
GibsonM.LeeJ.VenkatramanV.PriceM.LewisJ.MontgomeryO.MutluB.DomeyerJ.FoleyJ. (2016). Situation awareness, scenarios, and secondary tasks: Measuring driver performance and safety margins in highly automated vehicles. SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars - Electronic and Electrical Systems, 9(1), 237–242. https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-0145
29.
GilM.AlbertM.FonsJ.PelechanoV. (2019). Designing human-in-the-loop autonomous cyber-physical systems. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 130(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.04.006
30.
GuoC.SentouhC.PopieulJ. C.HauéJ. B.LangloisS.LoeilletJ. J.ThatT. N. (2019). Cooperation between driver and automated driving system: Implementation and evaluation. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 61(2), 314–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.04.006
HancockP. A.KajaksT.CairdJ. K.ChignellM. H.MizobuchiS.BurnsP. C.FengJ.FernieG. R.LavallièreM.NoyI. Y.RedelmeierD. A.VrkljanB. H. (2020). Challenges to human drivers in increasingly automated vehicles. Human Factors, 62(2), 310–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819900402
33.
HechtT.FeldhütterA.RadlmayrJ.NakanoY.MikiY.HenleC.BenglerK. (2018). A review of driver state monitoring systems in the context of automated driving. In Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Florence, Italy, 26–30 August 2018, 398–408
34.
HelldinT.FalkmanG.RiveiroM.DavidssonS. (2013). Presenting system uncertainty in automotive UIs for supporting trust calibration in autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Eindhoven Netherlands, 28–30 October 2013, 210–217
35.
HocJ. M. (2001). Towards a cognitive approach to human-machine cooperation in dynamic situations. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 54(4), 509–540. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2000.0454
36.
HoffmanG.BreazealC. (2004). Collaboration in human-robot teams. In American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1st Intelligent Systems Technical Conference, Chicago, Illinois, 20–22 September 2004, 1–18
37.
HoffmanG.BreazealC. (2007). Effects of anticipatory action on human-robot teamwork efficiency, fluency, and perception of team. In The ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 09–11 March 2007, Arlington, VA, USA, 1–8
38.
HolländerK.PflegingB. (2018). Preparing drivers for planned control transitions in automated cars. In 17th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia, Cairo, Egypt, November 2018, 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3282894.3282928
HollnagelE.WoodsD. D. (1999). Cognitive systems engineering: New wine in new bottles. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 51(2), 339–356. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1982.0313
41.
JohnsM.MokB.SirkinD.GowdaN.SmithC.TalamontiW.JuW. (2016). Exploring shared control in automated driving. In ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Christchurch, New Zealand, April 2016, 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2016.7451738
42.
JohnsonM.BradshawJ. M.FeltovichP. J. (2018). Tomorrow’s human–machine design tools: From levels of automation to interdependencies. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 12(1), 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343417736462
43.
JohnsonM.BradshawJ. M.FeltovichP. J.JonkerC. M.Van RiemsdijkM. B.SierhuisM. (2014). Coactive design: Designing support for interdependence in joint activity. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 3(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.5898/jhri.3.1.johnson
44.
KelleyH. H.HolmesJ. G.KerrN. L.ReisH. T.RusbultC. E.Van LangeP. A. M. (2003a). Interaction conditions and person factors.In An atlas of interpersonal situations (pp. 51–81). Cambridget University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511499845.004
45.
KelleyH. H.HolmesJ. G.KerrN. L.ReisH. T.RusbultC. E.Van LangeP. A. M. (2003b). Interpersonal situations: The context of social behavior. In An atlas of interpersonal situations (pp. 3–16). Cambridget University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511499845
46.
KelleyH. H.HolmesJ. G.KerrN. L.ReisH. T.RusbultC. E.Van LangeP. A. M. (2003c). Outcome interdependence. In An atlas of interpersonal situations (pp. 17–50). Cambridget University Press
47.
KleinG.WoodsD. D.BradshawJ. M.HoffmanR. R.FeltovichP. J. (2004). Ten challenges for making automation a “team player” in joint human-agent activity. IEEE Computer Systems,19(6), 91–95.
48.
KridalukmanaR.LuH. Y.NaderpourM. (2020). A supportive situation awareness model for human-autonomy teaming in collaborative driving. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 21(6), 658–683. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2020.1729443
49.
KuribayashiA.TakeuchiE.CarballoA.IshiguroY.TakedaK. (2021). A comparison of methods for sharing recognition information and interventions to assist recognition in autonomous driving system. In 2021 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Nagoya, Japan, 11–17 July 2021, 622–629
50.
LinegangM. P.StonerH. A.PattersonM. J.SeppeltB. D.HoffmanJ. D.CrittendonZ. B.LeeJ. D. (2006). Human- automation collaboration in dynamic mission planning: A challenge requiring an ecological approach. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Los Angeles, CA. 50(23), 2482–2486. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605002304
51.
LyonsJ. B.SycaraK.LewisM.CapiolaA. (2021). Human–autonomy teaming: Definitions, debates, and directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(May), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.589585
52.
MaH.LiS.ZhangE.LvZ.HuJ.WeiX. (2020). Cooperative autonomous driving oriented mec-aided 5g-v2x: Prototype system design, field tests and ai-based optimization tools. IEEE Access, 8(99), 54288–54302. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2981463
53.
MainpriceJ.Phillips-GrafflinC.SuayH. B.AlunniN.LofaroD.BerensonD.ChernovaS.LindemanR. W.OhP. (2014). From autonomy to cooperative traded control of humanoid manipulation tasks with unreliable communication: System design and lessons learned. In IEEE international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Chicago, IL, USA, 14–18 September 2014, 3767–3774. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2014.6943091
54.
MalinJ. T.SchreckenghostD. L.WoodsD. D.PotterS. S.JohannesenL.HollowayM.ForbusK. D. (1991). Making intelligent systems team players: Case studies and design issues (Volume 1: Human-computer interaction design). National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Houston, TX.
55.
MaloneT. W.CrowstonK. (1990). What is coordination theory and how can it help design cooperative work systems? In Proceedings of the 1990 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 7–10 October, 1990, 357–370.
56.
McNamaraM. (2012). Starting to untangle the web of cooperation, coordination, and collaboration. International Journal of Public Administration, 35(6), 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2012.655527
57.
MichonJ. A. (1985). A critical view of driver behavior models: What do we know, what should we do? In EvansL.SchwingR. C. (Eds.), Human behavior and traffic safety (pp. 485–524). Plenum Press
58.
MillerC.FunkH.WuP.GoldmanR.MeisnerJ.ChapmanM. (2005). The PlaybookTM approach to adaptive automation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Los Angeles, CA. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120504900105
59.
MillotP. (2009). Toward human-machine cooperation.In IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics, 2009, 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85640-5_1
MohseniF.VoronovS.FriskE. (2018). Deep learning model predictive control for autonomous driving in unknown environments. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 51(22), 447–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.11.593
62.
MosierK. L.FischerU.BurianB. K.KochanJ. A. (2017). Autonomous, context-sensitive, task management systems and decision support tools I: Human-autonomy teaming fundamentals and state of the art (NASA/TM-2017-219565) (Issue September). NASA Ames Research Center. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25859.60966
63.
MyersK. L.MorleyD. N. (2001). Human directability of agents. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Knowledge Capture, Victoria, BC, Canada, 22–23 October, 2001, 108–115
64.
MyersK. L.MorleyD. N. (2003). Policy-based agent directability. In Agent autonomy (pp. 185–209). Springer
65.
NassC.FoggB. J.MoonY. (1996). Can computers be teammates?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(6), 669–678
66.
O’BrienG. (1968). The measurement of cooperation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3(4), 427–439
67.
O’NeillT.McNeeseN.BarronA.SchelbleB. (2020). Human–autonomy teaming: A review and analysis of the empirical literature. Human Factors. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820960865
68.
PayyanadanR. P.LeeJ. D. (2019). Influence of familiarity on the driving behavior, route risk, and route choice preferences of older drivers. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 49(1), 10–19. 10.1109/THMS.2018.2874180
69.
PelliconeA.LyonsL.KumarV.ZhangE.BerlandM. (2019). Rainbow agents: A collaborative game for computational literacy. In CHI PLAY 2019 - extended Abstracts of the annual Symposium on computer-human Interaction in play (pp. 597–604). https://doi.org/10.1145/3341215.3356312
70.
PetermeijerS. M.AbbinkD. A.MulderM.De WinterJ. C. F. (2015). The effect of haptic support systems on driver performance: A literature survey. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 8(4), 467–479. https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2015.2437871
71.
Phillips-GrafflinC.SuayH. B.MainpriceJ.AlunniN.LofaroD.BerensonD.ChernovaS.LindemanR. W.OhP. (2016). From autonomy to cooperative traded control of humanoid manipulation tasks with unreliable communication: Applications to the valve-turning task of the DARPA robotics challenge and lessons learned. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems: Theory and Applications, 82(3–4), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-015-0256-5
72.
PokamR.DebernardS.ChauvinC.LangloisS. (2019). Principles of transparency for autonomous vehicles: First results of an experiment with an augmented reality human–machine interface. Cognition, Technology and Work, 21(4), 643–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00552-9
73.
RuleA.ForlizziJ. (2012). Designing interfaces for multi-user, multi-robot systems. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Boston, MA, USA, 5–8 March, 2012, 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1145/2157689.2157705
74.
SAE International. (2014). Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to on-road motor vehicle automated driving systems (J3016)
SalasE.WilsonK. A.MurphyC. E.KingH.SalisburyM. (2008). Communicating, coordinating, and cooperating when lives depend on it: Tips for teamwork. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 34(6), 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1553-7250(08)34042-2
77.
SarterN. B. (2002). Multimodal information presentation in support of human-automation communication and coordination. In Advances in human performance and cognitive engineering research: Automation (Vol 2). Elsevier Science/JAI Press. 2, 13–35.
78.
SchulteA.MeitingerC.OnkenR. (2009). Human factors in the guidance of uninhabited vehicles: Oxymoron or tautology?Cognition, Technology and Work, 11(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-008-0123-2
79.
SkjerveA. B. M.SkraaningG.Jr (2004). The quality of human-automation cooperation in human-system interface for nuclear power plants. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 61(5), 649–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.06.001
80.
TomaselloM. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Havard University Press
81.
VanderhaegenF. (2012). Cooperation and learning to increase the autonomy of ADAS. Cognition, Technology and Work, 14(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-011-0196-1
82.
WalchM.MühlK.KrausJ.StollT.BaumannM.WeberM. (2017). From car-driver-handovers to cooperative interfaces: Visions for driver–vehicle interaction in automated driving. In Automative user interface (pp. 273–294). Springer
83.
WangC.KrügerM.Wiebel-HerbothC. B. (2020). “Watch out!”: Prediction-level intervention for automated driving. In 12th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, DC, USA, September 2020, 169–180
84.
WeyerJ.FinkR. D. R. D.AdeltF. (2015). Human-machine cooperation in smart cars. An empirical investigation of the loss-of-control thesis. Safety Science, 72, 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.09.004
85.
WeßelG.SchreckC.AltendorfE.CanpolatY.FlemischF. (2017). Learning from the best–Naturalistic arbitration for cooperative driving. In International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2017.
86.
WilsonK. A.SalasE.PriestH. A.AndrewsD. (2007). Errors in the heat of battle: Taking a closer look at shared cognition breakdowns through teamwork. Human Factors, 49(2), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872007X312478
87.
WoodD. J.GrayB. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886391272001
88.
XingY.HuangC.LvC. (2020). Driver-automation collaboration for automated vehicles: A review of human-centered shared control. IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Proceedings, Iv, 1964–1971. https://doi.org/10.1109/IV47402.2020.9304755
89.
XingY.LvC.CaoD.HangP. (2021). Toward human-vehicle collaboration: Review and perspectives on human-centered collaborative automated driving. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 128(5), 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2021.103199
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
