Identifying the Factors Influencing Older Adults' Perceptions of Fully Automated Vehicles

While Fully Automated Vehicles (FAVs) have the potential to significantly expand older adults' access to mobility, limited research has focused on older adults' perceptions of such technology. The current driving simulation-based study will investigate factors that may govern older adults' perceptions of FAVs with respect to trust, acceptability, and safety. Participants (65+) will experience scenarios of manual and fully automated driving in a high-fidelity driving simulator. Their perceptions of the FAV will be measured before and after the driving experiences using questionnaires. Physiological and behavioral data will also be collected throughout the driving sessions to investigate whether positive or negative perceptions of technology are associated with behavioral or physiological responses. In addition, driving performance and driving styles of participants will be captured during manual driving to investigate whether an alignment between an individual's driving style and the FAV driving style will lead to a more positive perception towards FAVs.

[1]  Janine G. Walker,et al.  Cognitive, sensory and physical factors enabling driving safety in older adults. , 2005, Clinical psychology review.

[2]  Jangwoon Park,et al.  Relationships Between Cognitive Workload and Physiological Response Under Reliable and Unreliable Automation , 2018 .

[3]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[4]  Masooda Bashir,et al.  Trust in Automation , 2015, Hum. Factors.

[5]  Kara M. Kockelman,et al.  Assessing Public Opinions of and Interest in New Vehicle Technologies: An Austin Perspective , 2016 .

[6]  Nadine B. Sarter,et al.  How in the World Did We Ever Get into That Mode? Mode Error and Awareness in Supervisory Control , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[7]  Lisa J. Molnar,et al.  Use, perceptions, and benefits of automotive technologies among aging drivers , 2016, Injury Epidemiology.

[8]  Josef F. Krems,et al.  Keep Your Scanners Peeled , 2016, Hum. Factors.

[9]  Bryan Reimer,et al.  Autonomous Vehicles and Alternatives to Driving: Trust, Preferences, and Effects of Age , 2017 .

[10]  Kaarin J Anstey,et al.  A Multidomain Approach for Predicting Older Driver Safety Under In‐Traffic Road Conditions , 2008, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[11]  A Kirlik.  Modeling Strategic Behavior in Human-Automation Interaction: Why an "Aid" Can (and Should) Go Unused , 1993, Human factors.

[12]  A J McLean,et al.  Self-regulation of driving and its relationship to driving ability among older adults. , 2006, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[13]  Lisanne Bainbridge,et al.  Ironies of automation , 1982, Autom..

[14]  Gayla M. Cissell,et al.  Can High‐Risk Older Drivers Be Identified Through Performance‐Based Measures in a Department of Motor Vehicles Setting? , 2006, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[15]  Manfred Tscheligi,et al.  Predicting information technology usage in the car: towards a car technology acceptance model , 2012, AutomotiveUI.

[16]  Huiyang Li,et al.  Human Performance Consequences of Stages and Levels of Automation , 2014, Hum. Factors.

[17]  J. Cummings,et al.  The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A Brief Screening Tool For Mild Cognitive Impairment , 2005, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[18]  Matthew Rizzo,et al.  Neuropsychological Predictors of Driving Errors in Older Adults , 2010, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[19]  Marc Hassenzahl,et al.  The Interplay of Beauty, Goodness, and Usability in Interactive Products , 2004, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[20]  Edwin R. Galea,et al.  Perceptions of autonomous vehicles: Relationships with road users, risk, gender and age , 2018 .

[21]  Michael Sivak,et al.  A survey of public opinion about connected vehicles in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia , 2014, 2014 International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo (ICCVE).

[22]  Riender Happee,et al.  Public opinion on automated driving: results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents , 2015 .

[23]  Michael Sivak,et al.  A Survey of Public Opinion about Autonomous and Self-Driving Vehicles in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia , 2014 .

[24]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Function allocation: algorithm, alchemy or apostasy? , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[25]  Nazan Aksan,et al.  Individual differences in cognitive functioning predict effectiveness of a heads-up lane departure warning for younger and older drivers. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[26]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Stages and Levels of Automation: An Integrated Meta-analysis , 2010 .

[27]  Nazan Aksan,et al.  Cognitive functioning differentially predicts different dimensions of older drivers' on-road safety. , 2015, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[28]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[29]  Mary L. Cummings,et al.  The Role of Human-Automation Consensus in Multiple Unmanned Vehicle Scheduling , 2010, Hum. Factors.