As vehicle automation increases, drivers' roles shift from active operation to passive monitoring, making it challenging for drivers to effectively take over when automation fails. While a growing body of research focuses on providing assistance to improve driver monitoring behavior and takeover performance, these approaches have been mostly linked to the takeover event. The current study proposes to facilitate drivers' awareness during automated driving by adopting strategies from natural conversations, specifically, asking driver questions while monitoring the vehicle. In this simulated driving study, we investigated how different types of questions affect monitoring behavior and takeover performance with or without takeover notifications. Our preliminary results suggest that the driving-related questions could improve drivers’ takeover performance, especially when the takeover notification is absent.
AtchleyP.ChanM. (2011). Potential benefits and costs of concurrent task engagement to maintain vigilance: A driving simulator investigation. Human Factors, 53(1), 3-12.
2.
ByersJ. C.BittnerA. C.HillS. G. (1989) Traditional and raw task load index (TLX) correlations: Are paired comparisons necessary?Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety. MitalA. (Ed.) Taylor & Francis, 481–485.
3.
ClarkH.FengJ. (2017). Age differences in the takeover of vehicle control and engagement in non-driving-related activities in simulated driving with conditional automation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 106, 468-479.
4.
Cohen-LazryG.BorowskyA.Oron-GiladT. (2017, September). The effects of continuous driving-related feedback on drivers’ response to automation failures. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 1980-1984). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
5.
DeGuzmanC. A.HopkinsS. A.DonmezB. (2020). Driver takeover performance and monitoring behavior with driving automation at system-limit versus system-malfunction failures. Transportation Research Record, 2674(4), 140-151.
6.
De WinterJ. C.HappeeR.MartensM. H.StantonN. A. (2014). Effects of adaptive cruise control and highly automated driving on workload and situation awareness: A review of the empirical evidence. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 27, 196-217.
7.
DrewsF. A.PasupathiM.StrayerD. L. (2008). Passenger and cell phone conversations in simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(4), 392.
8.
ErikssonA.PetermeijerS. M.ZimmermannM.De WinterJ. C.BenglerK. J.StantonN. A. (2019). Rolling out the red (and green) carpet: supporting driver decision making in automation-to-manual transitions. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 49(1), 20-31.
9.
GreenleeE. T.DeLuciaP. R.NewtonD. C. (2018). Driver vigilance in automated vehicles: Hazard detection failures are a matter of time. Human Factors, 60(4), 465-476.
10.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139-183.
11.
KesslerR. C.AdlerL.AmesM.DemlerO.FaraoneS.HiripiE. … (2005). The World Health Organization Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS): A short screening scale for use in the general population. Psychological Medicine, 35(2), 245-256.
12.
LargeD. R.BurnettG.AntrobusV.SkrypchukL. (2018). Driven to discussion: engaging drivers in conversation with a digital assistant as a countermeasure to passive task-related fatigue. IET Intelligent Transport Systems, 12(6), 420-426.
13.
LeeJ.HiranoT.HanoT.ItohM. (2019, October). Conversation during partially automated driving: How attention arousal is effective on maintaining situation awareness. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC) (pp. 3718-3723). IEEE.
14.
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.
15.
LuZ.ZhangB.FeldhütterA.HappeeR.MartensM.De WinterJ. C. (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.
16.
MishlerS.ChenJ. (2022). Countering driver vigilance decrement for partially automated vehicles. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society annual meeting (Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 1857-1858). SAGE Publishing.
NiuJ.MaC. (2022). Is it good or bad to provide driver fatigue warning during take-over in highly automated driving?Transportation Research Record, 2676(2), 762-774.
SeppeltB. D.LeeJ. D. (2019). Keeping the driver in the loop: Dynamic feedback to support appropriate use of imperfect vehicle control automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 125, 66-80.
21.
Society of Automotive Engineers (2021). J3016_202104: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles - SAE International.
22.
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.
23.
WeaverB. W.DeLuciaP. R. (2022). A systematic review and meta-analysis of takeover performance during conditionally automated driving. Human Factors, 64(7), 1227-1260.
