Despite multiple taxonomies and descriptions of automation there is inconsistency in describing automation capabilities, making it difficult to interpret and replicate research. We conducted a systematic literature review to investigate how studies document automation. The Scopus® database was searched on January 13th, 2023, for vehicle automation studies published in the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Conference between 2012 and 2022. Twenty-one studies were identified. Sixteen of these studies described the vehicle automation in the protocol and apparatus and five were missing at least one element. We show inconsistency and insufficiency of these explanations, suggesting researchers and participants might not understand the levels of automation. We offer a guide for improving how researchers describe automation capabilities to improve the interpretability and replicability of studies.
AtayaA.KimW.ElsharkawyA.KimS. (2021). How to Interact with a Fully Autonomous Vehicle: Naturalistic Ways for Drivers to Intervene in the Vehicle System While Performing Non-Driving Related Tasks. Sensors, 21(6), Article 6.
2.
BiondiF. N.LohaniM.HopmanR.MillsS.CooperJ. M.StrayerD. L. (2018). 80 MPH and out-of-the-loop: Effects of real-world semiautomated driving on driver workload and arousal. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 62(1), 1878–1882.
3.
BlommerM.CurryR.KochharD.SwaminathanR.TalamontiW.TijerinaL. (2015). The Effects of a Scheduled Driver Engagement Strategy in Automated Driving. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 59(1), 1681–1685.
4.
BlommerM.CurryR.KochharD.SwaminathanR.TalamontiW.TijerinaL. (2017). Off-Road Glance Behavior, Response Time to a Forward Collision Hazard, and Engagement Strategy Effects in Automated Driving. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 61(1), 1909–1913.
5.
ChoiJ. K.JiY. G. (2015). Investigating the Importance of Trust on Adopting an Autonomous Vehicle. International Journal of HumanComputer Interaction, 31(10), 692–702.
6.
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, 106, 468–479.
7.
ClarkH.McLaughlinA. C.WilliamsB.FengJ. (2017). Performance in Takeover and Characteristics of Non-driving Related Tasks during Highly Automated Driving in Younger and Older Drivers. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 61(1), 37–41.
8.
Cohen-LazryG.BorowskyA.Oron-GiladT. (2017). The Effects of Continuous Driving-Related Feedback on Drivers’ Response to Automation Failures. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 61(1), 1980–1984.
9.
CoverdaleJ.RobertsL.LouieA.BeresinE. (2006). Writing the Methods. Academic Psychiatry, 30(5), 361–364.
10.
FeldhütterA.GoldC.HügerA.BenglerK. (2016). Trust in Automation as a Matter of Media Influence and Experi-ence of Automated Vehicles. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 60(1), 2024–2028.
11.
FunkhouserK.DrewsF. (2016). Putting the Brakes on Autonomous Vehicle Control: Responding to System Breakdowns. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 60(1), 1859–1863.
12.
GasserT. M.WesthoffD. (2012). BASt-study: Definitions of automation and legal issues in Germany. Proceedings of the 2012 Road Vehicle Automation Workshop.
13.
GlaserY.GlaserD.GreenC.LlanerasR. E.MeyerJ. (2017). Driver Hazard Detection and Avoidance Performance as a Function of EyesOff-Road Interval Under Partially Automated Driving. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 61(1), 1914–1918.
14.
GoldC.BerishaI.BenglerK. (2015). Utilization of Drivetime – Performing Non-Driving Related Tasks While Driving Highly Automated. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 59(1), 1666–1670.
15.
GoldC.DamböckD.LorenzL.BenglerK. (2013). “Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop?Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 57(1), 1938–1942.
16.
JamesW. (1890). The principles of psychology, Vol I. Henry Holt and Co.
17.
JamiesonG. A.SkraaningG. (2018). Levels of Automation in Human Factors Models for Automation Design: Why We Might Consider Throwing the Baby Out With the Bathwater. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 12(1), 42–49.
18.
KaberD. B. (2018). Issues in Human–Automation Interaction Modeling: Presumptive Aspects of Frameworks of Types and Levels of Automation. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 12(1), 7–24.
19.
KalletR. H. (2004). How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper. Respiratory Care, 49(10), 1229–1232.
20.
KerschbaumP.LorenzL.BenglerK. (2014). Highly automated driving with a decoupled steering wheel. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 58(1), 1686–1690.
21.
KörberM.BaselerE.BenglerK. (2018). Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving. Applied Ergonomics, 66, 18–31.
22.
KotzD.CalsJ. W. L. (2013). Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part IV: Methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(8), 817.
23.
LeeJ.SeeK. (2004). Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance. Human Factors, 46(1).
24.
LeeJ.GreenC.SeppeltB.McGeheeD.RauP.JohanssonE.MeratN.BalkS.PhilipsB.BenglerK.KitazakiS.ItohM.EngströmJ. (In Press). Mental Models of Driving Automation: Definition, mechanisms, consequences, and implications. Human Factors
25.
MillerD.JohnsM.MokB.GowdaN.SirkinD.LeeK.JuW. (2016). Behavioral Measurement of Trust in Automation: The Trust Fall. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 60(1), 1849–1853.
26.
MillerD.SunA.JohnsM.IveH.SirkinD.AichS.JuW. (2015). Distraction Becomes Engagement in Automated Driving. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 59(1), 1676–1680.
27.
MillerE. E.BoyleL. N. (2017). Driver adaptation to lane keeping assistance systems: Do drivers become less vigilant?Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 61(1), 1934–1938.
28.
MorrisD. M.ErnoJ. M.PilcherJ. J. (2017). Electrodermal Response and Automation Trust during Simulated Self-Driving Car Use. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 61(1), 1759–1762.
29.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2013). Preliminary statement of policy concerning automated vehicles.
30.
NeubauerC.MatthewsG.SaxbyD. (2014). Fatigue in the Automated Vehicle: Do Games and Conversation Distract or Energize the Driver?Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 58(1), 2053–2057.
31.
NovakaziF.JohanssonM.StrömbergH.KarlssonM. (2021). Levels of What?Investigating Drivers’ Understanding of Different Levels of Automation in Vehicles. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 15(2–3), 116–132.
32.
RadlmayrJ.BriichK.SchmidtK.SolbeckC.WehnerT. (2018). Peripheral monitoring of traffic in conditionally automated driving. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 62(1), 1828–1832.
33.
ReaganI. J.KiddD. G.CicchinoJ. B. (2017). Driver Acceptance of Adaptive Cruise Control and Active Lane Keeping in Five Production Vehicles. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 61(1), 1949–1953.
34.
SAE International. (2021). SAEJ3016: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles.
35.
SandersT.KaplanA.KochR.SchwartzM.HancockP. A. (2019). The Relationship Between Trust and Use Choice in Human-Robot Interaction. Human Factors, 61(4), 614–626.
36.
SchmidtJ.DreißigM.StolzmannW.RöttingM. (2017). The Influence of Prolonged Conditionally Automated Driving on the Take-Over Ability of the Driver. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 61(1), 1974–1978.
37.
YangJ. H.HanJ.ParkJ.-M. (2017). Toward Defining Driving Automation from a Human-Centered Perspective. CHI ‘17 Extended Abstracts, 2248–2254.
38.
YangY.GerlicherM.BenglerK. (2018). How does relaxing posture influence take-over performance in an automated vehicle?Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting, 62(1), 696–700.
