Noncritical State Transitions During Conditionally Automated Driving on German Freeways: Effects of Non–Driving Related Tasks on Takeover Time and Takeover Quality

Objective: This study aimed at investigating the driver’s takeover performance when switching from working on different non–driving related tasks (NDRTs) while driving with a conditionally automated driving function (SAE L3), which was simulated by a Wizard of Oz vehicle, to manual vehicle control under naturalistic driving conditions. Background: Conditionally automated driving systems, which are currently close to market introduction, require the user to stay fallback ready. As users will be allowed to engage in more complex NDRTs during the automated drive than when driving manually, the time needed to regain full manual control could likely be increased. Method: Thirty-four users engaged in different everyday NDRTs while driving automatically with a Wizard of Oz vehicle. After approximately either 5 min or 15 min of automated driving, users were requested to take back vehicle control in noncritical situations. The test drive took place in everyday traffic on German freeways in the metropolitan area of Stuttgart. Results: Particularly tasks that required users to turn away from the central road scene or hold an object in their hands led to increased takeover times. Accordingly, increased variance in the driver’s lane position was found shortly after the switch to manual control. However, the drivers rated the takeover situations to be mostly “harmless.” Conclusion: Drivers managed to regain control over the vehicle safely, but they needed more time to prepare for the manual takeover when the NDRTs caused motoric workload. Application: The timings found in the study can be used to design comfortable and safe takeover concepts for automated vehicles.

[1]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  Trust in Automation – Before and After the Experience of Take-over Scenarios in a Highly Automated Vehicle☆ , 2015 .

[2]  David R. Large,et al.  A Longitudinal Simulator Study to Explore Drivers’ Behaviour During Highly-Automated Driving , 2017 .

[3]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Engaging with Highly Automated Driving: To be or Not to be in the Loop? , 2017 .

[4]  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 .

[5]  J. Dusek,et al.  Impact of Incremental Increases in Cognitive Workload on Physiological Arousal and Performance in Young Adult Drivers , 2009 .

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

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

[8]  Alexandra Neukum,et al.  Driving performance at lateral system limits during partially automated driving. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[9]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  The Out-of-the-Loop Performance Problem and Level of Control in Automation , 1995, Hum. Factors.

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

[11]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  How Traffic Situations and Non-Driving Related Tasks Affect the Take-Over Quality in Highly Automated Driving , 2014 .

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

[13]  Christopher A. Monk,et al.  Recovering From Interruptions: Implications for Driver Distraction Research , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[14]  Frederik Naujoks,et al.  Behavioral adaptation caused by predictive warning systems – The case of congestion tail warnings , 2014 .

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

[16]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Transition to manual: driver behaviour when resuming control from a highly automated vehicle , 2014 .

[17]  J. Gregory Trafton,et al.  Preparing to resume an interrupted task: effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[18]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  Highly automated driving with a decoupled steering wheel , 2014 .

[19]  Louis Tijerina,et al.  Off-Road Glance Behavior, Response Time to a Forward Collision Hazard, and Engagement Strategy Effects in Automated Driving , 2017 .

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

[21]  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 .

[22]  Renaud Deborne,et al.  Transition of control in a partially automated vehicle: Effects of anticipation and non-driving-related task involvement , 2017 .

[23]  Wendy Ju,et al.  Exploring Transitional Automation with New and Old Drivers , 2016 .

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

[25]  Andrea M Philipp,et al.  Control and interference in task switching--a review. , 2010, Psychological bulletin.

[26]  Lutz Lorenz,et al.  Designing take over scenarios for automated driving , 2014 .

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

[28]  Alexandra Neukum,et al.  A Review of Non-driving-related Tasks Used in Studies on Automated Driving , 2017 .

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

[30]  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.

[31]  Yong Gu Ji,et al.  How we can measure the non-driving-task engagement in automated driving: Comparing flow experience and workload. , 2018, Applied ergonomics.

[32]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  The influence of age on the take-over of vehicle control in highly automated driving , 2016 .

[33]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Highly Automated Driving, Secondary Task Performance, and Driver State , 2012, Hum. Factors.

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

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

[36]  Niklas Strand,et al.  Semi-automated versus highly automated driving in critical situations caused by automation failures , 2014 .

[37]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  Requirements for cooperative vehicle guidance , 2013, 16th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC 2013).

[38]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  Utilization of Drivetime – Performing Non-Driving Related Tasks While Driving Highly Automated , 2015 .

[39]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Effects of adaptive cruise control and highly automated driving on workload and situation awareness: A review of the empirical evidence , 2014 .

[40]  T. Åkerstedt,et al.  Subjective and objective sleepiness in the active individual. , 1990, The International journal of neuroscience.

[41]  T Vogelpohl,et al.  Uebergabe von hochautomatisiertem Fahren zu manueller Steuerung , 2016 .

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

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

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