The role of system description for conditionally automated vehicles

Abstract Objective We studied how system descriptions of conditionally driving vehicles (SAE International, 2014) influenced drivers' knowledge/mental model, trust, and acceptance. Background The increasing proliferation of assisted and conditionally automated vehicles urge a proper understanding of knowledge about, acceptance, and trust in the system. Up to now there is a lack of studies for automated systems and system knowledge which will be served in this study. Methods We provided N = 120 participants with correct, incomplete, and incorrect descriptions about the conditionally automated vehicle. Thereafter, they watched five video clips with different situations where the driver has to resume control of the driving task or do nothing. Immediately before such a situation, the videos were frozen and knowledge questions were asked according to the SAGAT method (Endsley, 1995). Further, trust and acceptance before and after watching videos were measured. Results The knowledge questions differed in groups for level 2 (comprehension) and level 3 (projection) of situation awareness (SA). The difference is significant for the groups in level 2 situation awareness (comprehension) with correct vs. incorrect and incomplete vs. incorrect descriptions. The overall trust in their answer behavior was the highest for the group with the correct description followed by the group with the incomplete description. Furthermore, trust and acceptance did not differ between groups and even not between measurement time (before vs. after watching videos). Conclusion An incorrect preliminary system description leads to an incorrect mental model which in turn leads to incorrect comprehension and projection of traffic situations. This effect can be minimized over time, but is relevant to the safety of the driver. Application Accurate system descriptions might reduce the number and the gravity of most accidents with conditionally automated systems in driving. Moreover, repeated exposure will reduce the possibility of accidents.

[1]  C. Wickens,et al.  Situation Awareness, Mental Workload, and Trust in Automation: Viable, Empirically Supported Cognitive Engineering Constructs , 2008 .

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

[3]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[4]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Human factors and folk models , 2004, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[5]  Beatrice Rammstedt.  The 10-Item Big Five Inventory: Norm Values and Investigation of Sociodemographic Effects Based on a , 2007 .

[6]  Linda Ng Boyle,et al.  Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to assess automation , 2011, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[7]  H J Eysenck,et al.  Sensation seeking in England and America: cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. , 1978, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[8]  Douglas A. Wiegmann,et al.  Effects of Information Source, Pedigree, and Reliability on Operator Interaction With Decision Support Systems , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[9]  D. Broadbent.  Perception and communication , 1958 .

[10]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Multiple Resources and Mental Workload , 2008, Hum. Factors.

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

[12]  M R Endsley,et al.  Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. , 1999, Ergonomics.

[13]  M. Just,et al.  Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. , 1993 .

[14]  N. Moray,et al.  Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. , 2000 .

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

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

[17]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Analog Imagery in Mental Model Reasoning: Depictive Models , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[18]  B. Scholl,et al.  Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for “top-down” effects , 2015, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[19]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  On the Independence of Compliance and Reliance: Are Automation False Alarms Worse Than Misses? , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[20]  P A Hancock,et al.  Alarm effectiveness in driver-centred collision-warning systems. , 1997, Ergonomics.

[21]  David E. Kieras,et al.  The Role of a Mental Model in Learning to Operate a Device. , 1984 .

[22]  A. Treisman.  SELECTIVE ATTENTION IN MAN. , 1964, British medical bulletin.

[23]  O. John,et al.  Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German , 2007 .

[24]  Josef F. Krems,et al.  Keep Your Scanners Peeled , 2016, Hum. Factors.

[25]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[26]  Sanford Weisberg,et al.  An R Companion to Applied Regression , 2010 .

[27]  D. Rubin,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article CONFIDENCE, NOT CONSISTENCY, CHARACTERIZES FLASHBULB MEMORIES , 2001 .

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

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

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