Motivation for continuous haptic gas pedal feedback to support car following

The last years, increased effort has been dedicated to the design of systems that assist the driver in car following. The need for assistance systems arises from the fallibility of the visual feedback loop, for example due to inattention. Existing driver assistance systems either automate the car-following task or support drivers with binary warning systems to redirect their attention when necessary. The goal of this paper is to discuss the benefits and limitations of these systems, and to show the possibilities of an alternative design approach. To attain the goal, a theoretic analysis is presented, that views car following as a closed-loop control task that requires sufficient feedback about the separation (relative distance, relative velocity) to a lead vehicle. A task analysis helps to identify the areas where the current systems assist the driver well, and where they do not. The new design approach aims to keep the human in the loop, by supplementing the semi-continuous visual feedback loop with an additional continuous feedback loop, namely haptic feedback applied directly at the gas pedal. Expected benefits compared to existing systems include: better situation awareness (even during periods of visual inattention) and faster responses (the haptic feedback is available directly at the gas pedal, allowing the use of fast reflexes). Several design issues are presented, such as the prevention of nuisance and fatigue, deciding which separation states the feedback is based upon, and challenges in determining the correct characteristics of the haptic signals. The benefits of the approach are illustrated through several examples from literature that describe experimental humanin-the-loop studies with continuous haptic feedback. It is concluded that haptic feedback on the gas pedal is a promising way of supporting drivers.

[1]  A. R. Hale,et al.  Human error models as predictors of accident scenarios for designers in road transport systems , 1990 .

[2]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Telerobotics, Automation, and Human Supervisory Control , 2003 .

[3]  D. M. Hoedemaeker.  Driving with intelligent vehicles: driving behaviour with Adaptive Cruise Control and the acceptance by individual drivers , 1999 .

[4]  Ronald R. Knipling,et al.  Assessment of IVHS countermeasures for collision avoidance : rear-end crashes , 1993 .

[5]  David A. Abbink,et al.  Neuromuscular analysis of haptic gas pedal feedback during car following , 2006 .

[6]  Joachim Meyer,et al.  Why Better Operators Receive Worse Warnings , 2002, Hum. Factors.

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

[8]  R D Ervin,et al.  ADAPTIVE CRUISE CONTROL FIELD OPERATIONAL TEST , 1998 .

[9]  J. Gibson,et al.  A theoretical field-analysis of automobile-driving , 1938 .

[10]  David A. Abbink,et al.  Reduced power method: how to evoke low-bandwidth behaviour while estimating fullbandwidth. , 2007 .

[11]  George T. Schmidt.  Beginning the Third Decade of the Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , 1998 .

[12]  Mike McDonald,et al.  Car-following: a historical review , 1999 .

[13]  W. H. Janssen.  An extended evaluation of driving a prototype intelligent vehicle , 1995 .

[14]  A Heino,et al.  Choice of time-headway in car-following and the role of time-to-collision information in braking. , 1996, Ergonomics.

[15]  E. Boer.  Car following from the driver’s perspective , 1999 .

[16]  D. M. Hoedemaeker,et al.  Modeling driver behaviour with different degrees of automation : a hierarchical decision framework of interacting mental models , 1998 .

[17]  Amy R. Pritchett.  REVIEWING THE ROLE OF COCKPIT ALERTING SYSTEMS , 2001 .

[18]  Oliver Carsten,et al.  Safety Assessment of Driver Assistance Systems , 2001, European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research.

[19]  M. M. Van Paassen.  Biophysics in aircraft control: a model of the neuromuscular system of the pilot's arm , 1994 .

[20]  Mike McDonald,et al.  What is the answer? ... and come to that, what are the questions? , 1999 .

[21]  René van Paassen,et al.  Effects of lead vehicle speed and separation distance on driver car-following behavior , 2005, 2005 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.

[22]  E. De Vlugt,et al.  Identification of Spinal Reflexes , 2004 .

[23]  R West,et al.  DECISION MAKING, PERSONALITY AND DRIVING STYLE AS CORRELATES OF INDIVIDUAL ACCIDENT RISK , 1992 .

[24]  J P Bliss,et al.  Human probability matching behaviour in response to alarms of varying reliability. , 1995, Ergonomics.

[25]  Daniel V. McGehee,et al.  Collision Warning Timing, Driver Distraction, and Driver Response to Imminent Rear-End Collisions in a High-Fidelity Driving Simulator , 2002, Hum. Factors.

[26]  Joshua D. Hoffman,et al.  Collision warning design to mitigate driver distraction , 2004, CHI.

[27]  David H. Weir,et al.  A Pilot-Vehicle Systems Approach to Longitudinal Flight Director Design , 1971 .

[28]  S. Breznitz.  Cry Wolf: The Psychology of False Alarms , 1984 .

[29]  David A. Abbink,et al.  Task Instruction: the largest Influence on Human Operator Motion Control Dynamics , 2007, Second Joint EuroHaptics Conference and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (WHC'07).

[30]  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.

[31]  F.C.T. van der Helm,et al.  Reduced Power Method: how to evoke low-bandwidth behaviour while estimating full-bandwidth dynamics , 2007, 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics.