Directional tactile alerts for take-over requests in highly-automated driving

Abstract One of the most significant safety concerns regarding Highly-Automated Driving (HAD) is drivers’ ability to regain control of the vehicle safely. Vibro-tactile alerts were already suggested as an effective modality for Take-Over Requests (TOR) in terms of reducing reaction times. However, it is not clear yet whether such alerts should be compatible or incompatible with the location of hazards that might be present when the TOR is initiated. Studies regarding tactile directionality in other domains, and in manual vehicles have found mixed results. It is argued that part of the contradictory evidence may be related to contextual differences between the driving domain and other domains. Thus, this study aimed to test which directional design would be preferable for TORs in time-critical situations. Twenty-seven participants drove a highly-automated vehicle on a highway with two lanes in each travel direction, in a driving simulator. Each participant experienced five TORs in which they were required to take control and divert their vehicle away from an impending hazard that shut down an entire lane and was situated four seconds ahead. The disengagement of the autonomous driver was signaled using a tactile alert. For the first group, the tactile alert was directed towards the hazard (incompatible with the required action), for the second, it was directed away from it (compatible with the required action), and for the control group, the alert was non-directional. Results showed that drivers using the compatible alert reacted faster and more accurately than those using the incompatible alert. Participants using the non-directional alert reacted slower and less accurately than participants in both directional groups. The results contradict previous findings in the manual driving domain, where drivers are faster and more accurate to respond when the alert is compatible with the location of the hazard and not with the direction of the required action. It is argued that these discrepancies stem from the modified HAD driving task demands where drivers are disengaged from the driving task for long periods and are less aware of the driving environment. The implications for the design of autonomous vehicles are discussed.

[1]  J C F de Winter,et al.  Comparing spatially static and dynamic vibrotactile take-over requests in the driver seat. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[2]  Linda R. Elliott,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Vibrotactile and Visual Information Displays for Improving Task Performance , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).

[3]  Tal Oron-Gilad,et al.  Vibrotactile “On-Thigh” Alerting System in the Cockpit , 2011, Hum. Factors.

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

[5]  Alexander Toet,et al.  Uni-, bi- and tri-modal warning signals: effects of temporal parameters and sensory modality on perceived urgency , 2015 .

[6]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  Vibrotactile Displays: A Survey With a View on Highly Automated Driving , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[7]  R. Proctor,et al.  Stimulus-Response Compatibility Principles: Data, Theory, and Application , 2006 .

[8]  Kathrin Zeeb,et al.  Why is steering not the same as braking? The impact of non-driving related tasks on lateral and longitudinal driver interventions during conditionally automated driving , 2017 .

[9]  R Fuller,et al.  A conceptualization of driving behaviour as threat avoidance. , 1984, Ergonomics.

[10]  Hong Z. Tan,et al.  To Go or Not to Go: Stimulus-Response Compatibility for Tactile and Auditory Pedestrian Collision Warnings , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Haptics.

[11]  Robert Gray,et al.  A Comparison of Tactile, Visual, and Auditory Warnings for Rear-End Collision Prevention in Simulated Driving , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[12]  Charles Spence,et al.  Tactile warning signals for in-vehicle systems. , 2015, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[13]  J. R. Simon,et al.  Auditory S-R compatibility: the effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. , 1967, The Journal of applied psychology.

[14]  Gisa Aschersleben,et al.  Reversed effects of spatial compatibility in natural scenes. , 2009, The American journal of psychology.

[15]  Riender Happee,et al.  Take-over performance in evasive manoeuvres. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[16]  Tal Oron-Gilad,et al.  Alertness maintaining tasks (AMTs) while driving. , 2008, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[17]  P. Fitts,et al.  S-R compatibility: spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[18]  Hong Z. Tan,et al.  Using spatial vibrotactile cues to direct visual attention in driving scenes , 2005 .

[19]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Behavioural changes in drivers experiencing highly-automated vehicle control in varying traffic conditions , 2013 .