The manner an HMI presents information can affect a user's experience in highly automated vehicles. This online experimental study analyzed how informing participants of future or current events and vehicle behaviors in various modalities affected trust and comfort. We observed that presenting users with information about upcoming road events and vehicle maneuvers lead to greater user trust and comfort, but only when also alerting users about the immediately occurring events. Psychological and human-robot interaction theories provided explanations for why a combination of current and future alerts may result in higher user trust. Understanding how content temporality impacts the individual has design implications that may potentially lead to an increased partnership and optimized interaction between a person and their highly automated vehicle.
DzindoletM. T.PetersonS. A.PomrankyR. A.PierceL. G.BeckH. P. (2003, jun). The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58 (6), 697–718. doi: 10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00038-7
HoffK. A.BashirM. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human factors, 57 (3), 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570
7.
HolthausenB. E.WintersbergerP.WalkerB. N.RienerA. (2020). Situational trust scale for automated driving (sts-ad): Development and initial validation. In 12th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications (pp. 40–47). https://doi.org/10.1145/3409120.3410637
8.
InagakiT.SheridanT. B. (2019, nov). A critique of the SAE conditional driving automation definition, and analyses of options for improvement. Cognition, Technology and Work , 21(4), 569–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0471-5
9.
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), 43–69. https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.3.1.Johnson
10.
KayeS.-A.LewisI.BuckleyL.RakotonirainyA. (2020). Assessing the feasibility of the theory of planned behaviour in predicting drivers’ intentions to operate conditional and full automated vehicles. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 74, 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.08.015
11.
KooJ.KwacJ.JuW.SteinertM.LeiferL.NassC. (2015, nov). Why did my car just do that? Explaining semi-autonomous driving actions to improve driver understanding, trust, and performance. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 4 (9), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-014-0227-2
LewisB. A.BaldwinC. L. (2015). Comparison of traditional psychophysical and sorting methods for in- vehicle display design. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 59, pp. 1312–1315). https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931215591215
14.
LiM.HolthausenB. E.StuckR. E.WalkerB. N. (2019). No Risk No Trust: Investigating Perceived Risk in Highly Automated Driving. https://doi.org/10.1145/3342197.3344525
15.
LordF. M. (1953). On the statistical treatment of football numbers. MajorL.ShahJ. (2020). What to expect when you’re expecting robots., 1–257.
16.
PaddeuD.ParkhurstG.ShergoldI. (2020, jun). Passenger comfort and trust on first-time use of a shared autonomous shuttle vehicle. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 115, 102604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2020.02.026
SiebertW.OehlM.HogerR.PfisterH.-R. (2013). Discomfort in Automated Driving – The Disco-Scale. Communications in Computer and Information Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39476-8_69
19.
VergaraM.PagéA. (2000, jun). System to measure the use of the backrest in sitting-posture office tasks. Applied Ergonomics, 31 (3), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-6870(99)00056-3
20.
VinkP.HallbeckS. (2012, mar). Editorial: Comfort and discomfort studies demonstrate the need for a new model. Applied Ergonomics, 43 (2), 271–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2011.06.001
21.
WalkerF.SteinkeJ.MartensM.VerweyW. (2020). Do engineer perceptions about automated vehicles match user trust? consequences for design. Transportation research interdisciplinary perspectives, 8, 100251. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.trip.2020.100251
22.
WolfJ.WiednerM.KariM.BethgeD. (2021). Hminference: Inferring multimodal hmi interactions in automotive screens. In 13th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications (pp. 230–236). https://doi.org/10.1145/3409118.3475145
23.
YangY.KarakayaB.DominioniG. C.KawabeK.BenglerK. (2018b). An hmi concept to improve driver’s visual behavior and situation awareness in automated vehicle. In 2018 21st international conference on intelligent transportation systems (itsc) (pp. 650–655). https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2018.8569986
24.
YoungM. S.BirrellS. A.StantonN. A. (2011). Safe driving in a green world: A review of driver performance benchmarks and technologies to support ‘smart’driving. Applied ergonomics, 42 (4), 533–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.08.012
25.
YunH.YangJ. H. (2020). Multimodal warning design for take-over request in conditionally automated driving. European transport research review, 12, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12544-020-00427-5
