Impact of training and in-vehicle task performance on manual control recovery in an automated car

Abstract Automated driving (AD) introduces new skills needs for drivers to handle manual control recovery (MCR). In the scope of traffic safety, such skills should be investigated before this technology is available on public roads, especially in critical situations such as emergencies. The aim of the present study is to examine to what extend lack of training and in-vehicle task performance may impair MCR in a fully automated car. This study explores AD in a driving simulator, focusing on emergency MCR performance and trust in this system. 113 participants were involved. Training (simple vs. elaborated) and in-vehicle task performance (with vs. without) were manipulated. The MCR method (hands and feet used simultaneously or not) and its impact on response time and the number of pedals interactions were also examined. Training improved response time and decreased the number of interactions with the pedals. Moreover, the elaborated training group had fewer interactions with the pedals in the second and last system failure than in the first one. Performing an in-vehicle task slowed response time but did not significantly affect the number of interactions with the pedals. Response time was faster when hands and feet were used simultaneously in MCR. Elaborated training influenced trust in AD. Training drivers, using practice of the system and explaining its underlying logic, contributed to improve the human-automation performance. These results suggest the benefits of a training policy to enhance MCR performance and optimize trust in the system.

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

[2]  Stéphanie Bordel,et al.  Sentiment de contrôle et acceptabilité sociale a priori des aides à la conduite , 2008 .

[3]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  Partially Automated Driving as a Fallback Level of High Automation , 2013 .

[4]  William Payre,et al.  Intention to use a fully automated car: attitudes and a priori acceptability , 2014 .

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

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

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

[8]  John D. Lee,et al.  Factors moderating the impact of distraction on driving performance and safety , 2009 .

[9]  Peter A Hancock,et al.  State of science: mental workload in ergonomics , 2015, Ergonomics.

[10]  Stefan Brandenburg,et al.  Switching from manual to automated driving and reverse: Are drivers behaving more risky after highly automated driving? , 2014, 17th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC).

[11]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Visualizing Thought , 2011, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[12]  John W. Senders,et al.  THE ATTENTIONAL DEMAND OF AUTOMOBILE DRIVING , 1967 .

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

[14]  I. Deary,et al.  Reaction Time, Age, and Cognitive Ability: Longitudinal Findings from Age 16 to 63 Years in Representative Population Samples , 2005 .

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

[16]  Lei Wang,et al.  Carryover Effects of Highly Automated Convoy Driving on Subsequent Manual Driving Performance , 2014, Hum. Factors.

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

[18]  N A Stanton,et al.  What's skill got to do with it? Vehicle automation and driver mental workload , 2007, Ergonomics.

[19]  William Payre,et al.  Fully Automated Driving , 2016, Hum. Factors.

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

[21]  Barbara E. Sabey,et al.  The Known Risks We Run: The Highway , 1980 .

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

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

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

[25]  Regina A. Pomranky,et al.  The role of trust in automation reliance , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[26]  D. Shinar,et al.  Effects of uncertainty, transmission type, driver age and gender on brake reaction and movement time. , 2002, Journal of safety research.

[27]  Mark S Horswill,et al.  Using fuzzy signal detection theory to determine why experienced and trained drivers respond faster than novices in a hazard perception test. , 2007, Accident; analysis and prevention.

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

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

[30]  Catherine Neubauer,et al.  The Effects of Cell Phone Use and Automation on Driver Performance and Subjective State in Simulated Driving , 2012 .

[31]  Mark S. Young,et al.  Cooperation between drivers and automation: implications for safety , 2009 .