Improving Usefulness of Automated Driving by Lowering Primary Task Interference through HMI Design

During conditionally automated driving (CAD), driving time can be used for non-driving-related tasks (NDRTs). To increase safety and comfort of an automated ride, upcoming automated manoeuvres such as lane changes or speed adaptations may be communicated to the driver. However, as the driver’s primary task consists of performing NDRTs, they might prefer to be informed in a nondistracting way. In this paper, the potential of using speech output to improve human-automation interaction is explored. A sample of 17 participants completed different situations which involved communication between the automation and the driver in a motion-based driving simulator. The Human-Machine Interface (HMI) of the automated driving system consisted of a visual-auditory HMI with either generic auditory feedback (i.e., standard information tones) or additional speech output. The drivers were asked to perform a common NDRT during the drive. Compared to generic auditory output, communicating upcoming automated manoeuvres additionally by speech led to a decrease in self-reported visual workload and decreased monitoring of the visual HMI. However, interruptions of the NDRT were not affected by additional speech output. Participants clearly favoured the HMI with additional speech-based output, demonstrating the potential of speech to enhance usefulness and acceptance of automated vehicles.

[1]  J. George,et al.  Work Interrupted: A Closer Look at the Role of Interruptions in Organizational Life , 2003 .

[2]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  “Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop? , 2013 .

[3]  Paul M. Fitts,et al.  Eye movements of aircraft pilots during instrument-landing approaches. , 1950 .

[4]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Take-Over Time in Highly Automated Vehicles , 2018, Driver Reactions to Automated Vehicles.

[5]  M. König,et al.  Users’ resistance towards radical innovations: The case of the self-driving car , 2017 .

[6]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Phase II – Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment , 2006 .

[7]  M. B. Edwards,et al.  Task interruption and its effects on memory. , 1998, Memory.

[8]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[9]  Alexandra Neukum,et al.  Increasing anthropomorphism and trust in automated driving functions by adding speech output , 2017, 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

[10]  Alexandra Neukum,et al.  Your Turn or My Turn?: Design of a Human-Machine Interface for Conditional Automation , 2016, AutomotiveUI.

[11]  Dot Hs,et al.  Crash Warning System Interfaces: Human Factors Insights and Lessons Learned , 2007 .

[12]  Bastian Pfleging,et al.  Investigating user needs for non-driving-related activities during automated driving , 2016, MUM.

[13]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  The effects of driving with different levels of unreliable automation on self-reported workload and secondary task performance , 2016 .

[14]  Kathrin Zeeb,et al.  Is take-over time all that matters? The impact of visual-cognitive load on driver take-over quality after conditionally automated driving. , 2016, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[15]  Cristy Ho,et al.  Multisensory In-Car Warning Signals for Collision Avoidance , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[16]  John P. Gilbert,et al.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Jacob Cohen. Academic Press, New York, 1969. xvi + 416 pp. $13.50 , 1970 .

[17]  Michael Weber,et al.  Towards Cooperative Driving: Involving the Driver in an Autonomous Vehicle's Decision Making , 2016, AutomotiveUI.

[18]  Nadja Schömig,et al.  The Importance of Interruption Management for Usefulness and Acceptance of Automated Driving , 2017, AutomotiveUI.

[19]  Yoram Shiftan,et al.  User preferences regarding autonomous vehicles , 2017 .

[20]  Annika Larsson.  A Countdown to Manual Driving: How Do Drivers Get “Back-in-the-Loop”? , 2017 .

[21]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Effects of auditory stimulus intensity on response force in simple, go/no-go, and choice RT tasks , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[22]  Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles , 2022 .

[23]  Nadja Schömig,et al.  The Interaction Between Highly Automated Driving and the Development of Drowsiness , 2015 .

[24]  Robert J. K. Jacob,et al.  Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research : Ready to deliver the promises , 2002 .

[25]  Serge Boverie,et al.  The Importance of Driver State Assessment Within Highly Automated Vehicles , 2009 .

[26]  John D. Lee,et al.  Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance , 2004 .

[27]  Michael Weber,et al.  Autonomous Driving: Investigating the Feasibility of Bimodal Take-Over Requests , 2017, Int. J. Mob. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[28]  Alexandra Neukum,et al.  A Human-Machine Interface for Cooperative Highly Automated Driving , 2017 .

[29]  Ricardo A. Daziano,et al.  Are Consumers Willing to Pay to Let Cars Drive for Them? Analyzing Response to Autonomous Vehicles , 2017 .

[30]  R. Happee,et al.  A human factors perspective on automated driving , 2017 .

[31]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[32]  Alexandra Neukum,et al.  Secondary task engagement and vehicle automation - comparing the effects of different automation levels in an on-road experiment , 2016 .

[33]  Tommy Strandvall,et al.  Eye Tracking in Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Research , 2009, INTERACT.

[34]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[35]  Göran Falkman,et al.  Presenting system uncertainty in automotive UIs for supporting trust calibration in autonomous driving , 2013, AutomotiveUI.

[36]  Kieran Mathieson,et al.  Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[37]  Iis P. Tussyadiah,et al.  Attitudes Toward Autonomous on Demand Mobility System: The Case of Self-Driving Taxi , 2017, ENTER.

[38]  Alexandra Neukum,et al.  Cooperative warning systems: The impact of false and unnecessary alarms on drivers' compliance. , 2016, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[39]  Andrea Kiesel,et al.  Impact of contingency manipulations on accessory stimulus effects , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[40]  D. Broadbent,et al.  What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity , 1989 .

[41]  Alexandra Neukum,et al.  The effect of urgency of take-over requests during highly automated driving under distraction conditions , 2014 .

[42]  Frederik Naujoks,et al.  Understanding and Applying the Concept of “Driver Availability” in Automated Driving , 2017 .

[43]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Takeover Time in Highly Automated Vehicles: Noncritical Transitions to and From Manual Control , 2017, Hum. Factors.

[44]  Mark Vollrath,et al.  Improving the Driver–Automation Interaction , 2013, Hum. Factors.

[45]  Wendy Ju,et al.  Distraction Becomes Engagement in Automated Driving , 2015 .

[46]  Catherine Neubauer,et al.  Fatigue in the Automated Vehicle , 2014 .

[47]  Susanne Boll,et al.  Assisting Drivers with Ambient Take-Over Requests in Highly Automated Driving , 2016, AutomotiveUI.

[48]  Alexandra Neukum,et al.  Specificity and timing of advisory warnings based on cooperative perception , 2014, Mensch & Computer Workshopband.

[49]  Kara A. Latorella,et al.  The Scope and Importance of Human Interruption in Human-Computer Interaction Design , 2002, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[50]  E. M. Altmann,et al.  Task Interruption: Resumption Lag and the Role of Cues , 2004 .

[51]  Arthur F. Kramer,et al.  Influence of Age and Proximity Warning Devices on Collision Avoidance in Simulated Driving , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[52]  Wendy Ju,et al.  Timing of unstructured transitions of control in automated driving , 2015, 2015 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

[53]  Frederik Naujoks,et al.  Testing Scenarios for Human Factors Research in Level 3 Automated Vehicles , 2017 .

[54]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  Take-over again: Investigating multimodal and directional TORs to get the driver back into the loop. , 2017, Applied ergonomics.

[55]  Brian P. Bailey,et al.  On the need for attention-aware systems: Measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective state , 2006, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[56]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  A power primer. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[57]  Alexandra Neukum,et al.  Controllability of partially automated driving functions - does it matter whether drivers are allowed to take their hands off the steering wheel? , 2015 .

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

[59]  Alexandra Neukum,et al.  Speech improves human-automation cooperation in automated driving , 2016, MuC.

[60]  Josef F. Krems,et al.  What would drivers like to know during automated driving? Information needs at different levels of automation. , 2015 .