Calibrating trust through knowledge: Introducing the concept of informed safety for automation in vehicles

Abstract There has been an increasing focus on the development of automation in vehicles due its many potential benefits like safety, improved traffic efficiency, reduced emissions etc. One of the key factors influencing public acceptance of automated vehicle technologies is their level of trust. Development of trust is a dynamic process and needs to be calibrated to the correct levels for safe deployment to ensure appropriate use of such systems. One of the factors influencing trust is the knowledge provided to the driver about the system’s true capabilities and limitations. After a 56 participants driving simulator study, the authors found that with the introduction of knowledge about the true capabilities and limitations of the automated system, trust in the automated system increased as compared to when no knowledge was provided about the system. Participants experienced two different types of automated systems: low capability automated system and high capability automated system. Interestingly, with the introduction of knowledge, the average trust levels for both low and high capability automated systems were similar. Based on the experimental results, the authors introduce the concept of informed safety, i.e., informing the drivers about the safety limits of the automated system to enable them to calibrate their trust in the system to an appropriate level.

[1]  Mascha C. van der Voort,et al.  Supporting the Changing Driver’s Task: Exploration of Interface Designs for Supervision and Intervention in Automated Driving , 2016 .

[2]  Jessica B. Cicchino,et al.  Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[3]  Jürgen Sauer,et al.  System reliability, performance and trust in adaptable automation. , 2016, Applied ergonomics.

[4]  Christopher A. Miller,et al.  Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems , 2004, CACM.

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

[6]  Bako Rajaonah,et al.  The role of intervening variables in driver-ACC cooperation , 2008, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[7]  Sarah Sharples,et al.  Impact of automation: Measurement of performance, workload and behaviour in a complex control environment. , 2015, Applied ergonomics.

[8]  Mark R. Lehto,et al.  Foundations for an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Automated Systems , 2000 .

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

[10]  S. Cairns,et al.  Sociological perspectives on travel and mobilities: A review , 2014 .

[11]  Dick de Waard,et al.  A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics , 1997 .

[12]  Josef F. Krems,et al.  Prior Familiarization With Takeover Requests Affects Drivers’ Takeover Performance and Automation Trust , 2017, Hum. Factors.

[13]  Rolf Johansson,et al.  The need for an environment perception block to address all ASIL levels simultaneously , 2016, 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

[14]  S S Stevens,et al.  HUMAN ENGINEERING FOR AN EFFECTIVE AIR-NAVIGATION AND TRAFFIC-CONTROL SYSTEM, AND APPENDIXES 1 THRU 3 , 1951 .

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

[16]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Are you in the loop? Using gaze dispersion to understand driver visual attention during vehicle automation , 2017 .

[17]  Mark S. Young,et al.  Vehicle automation and driving performance , 1998 .

[18]  Bonnie M. Muir,et al.  Trust in automation. I: Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems , 1994 .

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

[20]  Alireza Talebpour,et al.  Influence of connected and autonomous vehicles on traffic flow stability and throughput , 2016 .

[21]  Robert S. Kennedy,et al.  Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. , 1993 .

[22]  Annika F L Larsson,et al.  Driver usage and understanding of adaptive cruise control. , 2012, Applied ergonomics.

[23]  Stewart A. Birrell,et al.  Towards increased reliability by objectification of Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment (HARA) of automated automotive systems , 2017 .

[24]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  The chatty co-driver: A linguistics approach applying lessons learnt from aviation incidents , 2017 .

[25]  Kevin B. Bennett,et al.  Ecological interface design and system safety: One facet of Rasmussen's legacy. , 2017, Applied ergonomics.

[26]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

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

[28]  Bonnie M. Muir,et al.  Trust Between Humans and Machines, and the Design of Decision Aids , 1987, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[29]  Fabrice Vienne,et al.  Trust and the use of adaptive cruise control: a study of a cut-in situation , 2006, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[30]  Enid Montague,et al.  How different types of users develop trust in technology: a qualitative analysis of the antecedents of active and passive user trust in a shared technology. , 2014, Applied ergonomics.

[31]  Paul A. Jennings,et al.  Identifying a gap in existing validation methodologies for intelligent automotive systems: Introducing the 3xD simulator , 2015, 2015 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

[32]  Daniele Ruscio,et al.  Limitations and automation: the role of information about device-specific features in ADAS acceptability , 2016 .

[33]  M. Sepulcrea,et al.  Cooperative Vehicle-to-Vehicle Active Safety Testing under Challenging Conditions , 2014 .

[34]  Fangfang Zheng,et al.  Automated cars: Queue discharge at signalized intersections with ‘Assured-Clear-Distance-Ahead’ driving strategies , 2016 .

[35]  Bobbie D. Seppelt,et al.  Making adaptive cruise control (ACC) limits visible , 2007, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[36]  N. Moray,et al.  Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. , 1996, Ergonomics.

[37]  Stewart A. Birrell,et al.  Calibrating Trust to Increase the Use of Automated Systems in a Vehicle , 2017 .

[38]  John A. Michon,et al.  A critical view of driver behavior models: What do we know , 1985 .

[39]  Annika F.L. Larsson,et al.  Learning from experience: familiarity with ACC and responding to a cut-in situation in automated driving , 2014 .

[40]  Paul A. Jennings,et al.  Introducing ASIL inspired dynamic tactical safety decision framework for automated vehicles , 2017, 2017 IEEE 20th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC).

[41]  Brett R.C. Molesworth,et al.  The influence of attitude towards individuals’ choice for a remotely piloted commercial flight: A latent class logit approach , 2016 .

[42]  Wendy Ju,et al.  Behavioral Measurement of Trust in Automation , 2016 .

[43]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  The role of hierarchical knowledge representation in decisionmaking and system management , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[44]  Mike McDonald,et al.  Driving behaviour models enabling the simulation of Advanced Driving Assistance Systems: revisiting the Action Point paradigm , 2013 .

[45]  Stephen M. Casner,et al.  The challenges of partially automated driving , 2016, Commun. ACM.

[46]  Linda Ng Boyle,et al.  Reading, typing, and driving: How interactions with in-vehicle systems degrade driving performance , 2014 .

[47]  Keqiang Li,et al.  Driving safety field theory modeling and its application in pre-collision warning system , 2016 .

[48]  Kara M. Kockelman,et al.  The Travel and Environmental Implications of Shared Autonomous Vehicles, Using Agent-Based Model Scenarios , 2014 .

[49]  Anne T McCartt,et al.  Volvo Drivers’ Experiences With Advanced Crash Avoidance and Related Technologies , 2014, Traffic injury prevention.

[50]  J. Krems,et al.  The evolution of mental model, trust and acceptance of adaptive cruise control in relation to initial information , 2013 .

[51]  N Moray,et al.  Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. , 1992, Ergonomics.

[52]  Daniel J. Fagnant,et al.  Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Recommendations , 2015 .

[53]  N A Stanton,et al.  Transition to manual: Comparing simulator with on-road control transitions. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[54]  Martijn Tideman,et al.  Future testing of active safety systems , 2010 .

[55]  Guy H. Walker,et al.  Trust in vehicle technology , 2016 .

[56]  Mark S. Young,et al.  Drive-by-wire: The case of driver workload and reclaiming control with adaptive cruise control , 1997 .

[57]  Victoria A Banks,et al.  Keep the driver in control: Automating automobiles of the future. , 2016, Applied ergonomics.

[58]  Cyriel Diels,et al.  Self-driving carsickness. , 2016, Applied ergonomics.

[59]  Colin G. Drury,et al.  Foundations for an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Automated Systems , 2000 .

[60]  Salima Hassas,et al.  How to assess the benefits of connected vehicles? A simulation framework for the design of cooperative traffic management strategies , 2016 .

[61]  Christina M. Rudin-Brown,et al.  BEHAVIOURAL ADAPTATION TO ADAPTIVE CRUISE CONTROL (ACC): IMPLICATIONS FOR PREVENTIVE STRATEGIES , 2004 .

[62]  BaekGyu Kim,et al.  Automotive software certification: current status and challenges , 2016 .