Methodologies to assess usability and safety of ADAS and automated vehicle

In the framework of future innovation and for the sake of road safety, there is a great hope in fully supporting, or even replacing, the human driver by reliable technology. But, due to the novelty of this context, an important care will have to be devoted to investigate drivers' expectation, needs, behavior and functional abilities to reach this goal. In this context, this paper reviews several human factors issues related to partial and fully automated vehicles, with discussion of strengths and weaknesses of methods investigating driver automation acceptability, trust, situation awareness and workload. Main results of these parameters in relation to automated driving are presented and relevant methodologies to investigate these human variables are discussed in the perspective of real road experiments context.

[1]  J. Trnros,et al.  EFFECTS OF ACC ON DRIVER BEHAVIOUR, WORKLOAD AND ACCEPTANCE IN RELATION TO MINIMUM TIME HEADWAY , 2002 .

[2]  Thomas D. Hardiman,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of Sagat and Sart for Evaluations of Situation Awareness , 1998 .

[3]  Kaleb McDowell,et al.  Evaluation of semi‐autonomous convoy driving , 2008, J. Field Robotics.

[4]  Göran Falkman,et al.  Presenting system uncertainty in automotive UIs for supporting trust calibration in autonomous driving , 2013, AutomotiveUI.

[5]  David Woods,et al.  Situation Awareness: A Critical But Ill-Defined Phenomenon , 1991 .

[6]  Danielle Dai,et al.  Public Perceptions of Self-Driving Cars: The Case of Berkeley, California , 2014 .

[7]  Kwang-Yun Wohn,et al.  Effects on Productivity and Safety of Map and Augmented Reality Navigation Paradigms , 2011, IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst..

[8]  Natasha Merat,et al.  How do Drivers Behave in a Highly Automated Car , 2017 .

[9]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  A usability evaluation toolkit for In-Vehicle Information Systems (IVISs). , 2011, Applied ergonomics.

[10]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[11]  Albrecht Schmidt,et al.  Making use of drivers' glances onto the screen for explicit gaze-based interaction , 2010, AutomotiveUI.

[12]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Automated driving, secondary task performance and situation awareness , 2010 .

[13]  Dick de Waard,et al.  The measurement of drivers' mental workload , 1996 .

[14]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  Potential Individual Differences Regarding Automation Effects in Automated Driving , 2014, Interacción '14.

[15]  A. Pauzie,et al.  A method to assess the driver mental workload: The driving activity load index (DALI) , 2008 .

[16]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Control Task Substitution in Semiautomated Driving , 2012, Hum. Factors.

[17]  Adam Sebastian Jardim,et al.  A Study of Public Acceptance of Autonomous Cars , 2013 .

[18]  Marcus Tönnis,et al.  Facing Diversity When Designing and Evaluating Driver Support Systems , 2007 .

[19]  Seiichi Kagaya,et al.  Cellular Telephone Conversation While Driving: Effects on Driver Reaction Time and Subjective Mental Workload , 2000 .

[20]  Naohisa Hashimoto,et al.  Measurement of Driver's Reaction Time to Failure of Steering Controller during Automatic Driving , 2005 .

[21]  Masooda Bashir,et al.  Trust in Automation , 2015, Hum. Factors.

[22]  Phillip Tretten.  Information design solutions for automotive displays focus on HUD , 2011 .

[23]  Ralf Risser.  The Safety of Intelligent Driver Support Systems: Design, Evaluation and Social Perspectives , 2011 .

[24]  Anita Gärling,et al.  Where should driver information be placed? : a study on display layout , 2009 .

[25]  Mark S. Young,et al.  A proposed psychological model of driving automation , 2000 .

[26]  Doowon Cha.  DRIVER WORKLOAD COMPARISONS AMONG ROAD SECTIONS OF AUTOMATED HIGHWAY SYSTEMS. IN: HUMAN FACTORS IN DRIVING, SEATING, AND VISION , 2003 .

[27]  O Carsten.  DRIVER ASSISTANCE SYSTEMS: SAFE OR UNSAFE , 2001 .

[28]  D. Handt,et al.  Statistics and the Theory of Measurement , 2010 .

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

[30]  Albert Kircher,et al.  Using mobile telephones: cognitive workload and attention resource allocation. , 2004, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[31]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Preface to the Special Section on Human Factors and Automation in Vehicles , 2012, Hum. Factors.

[32]  Yuji Takada,et al.  EVALUATION OF DRIVING-ASSISTANCE SYSTEMS BASED ON DRIVERS' WORKLOAD , 2017 .

[33]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Design and Evaluation for Situation Awareness Enhancement , 1988 .

[34]  Wassim G. Najm,et al.  Evaluation of an Automotive Rear-End Collision Avoidance System , 2006 .

[35]  Jaap Ham,et al.  Trust in Smart Systems , 2012, Hum. Factors.

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

[37]  Herbert A. Colle,et al.  Context Effects in Subjective Mental Workload Ratings , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[38]  E. C. Adam,et al.  Fighter cockpits of the future , 1993, [1993 Proceedings] AIAA/IEEE Digital Avionics Systems Conference.

[39]  Christoph MAYSER,et al.  Driver Workload Monitoring , 2003 .

[40]  E Bekiaris,et al.  DRIVER NEEDS AND PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE REGARDING TELEMATIC IN-VEHICLE EMERGENCY CONTROL AIDS , 1997 .

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

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

[43]  Marika Hoedemaeker,et al.  Driver behavior in an emergency situation in the Automated Highway System , 1999 .

[44]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Measurement of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[45]  Jae-Gil Lee,et al.  Can Autonomous Vehicles Be Safe and Trustworthy? Effects of Appearance and Autonomy of Unmanned Driving Systems , 2015, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

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

[47]  George Mason.  Situation Awareness, Mental Workload, and Trust in Automation:Viable, Empirically Supported Cognitive Engineering Constructs , 2011 .

[48]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews , 2003, Land Economics.

[49]  Marika Hoedemaeker,et al.  Driving with a Congestion Assistant; mental workload and acceptance. , 2009, Applied ergonomics.

[50]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT) , 1988, Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference.

[51]  Manfred Tscheligi,et al.  Towards Autonomous Cars: The Effect of Autonomy Levels on Acceptance and User Experience , 2014, AutomotiveUI.

[52]  Karel Brookhuis,et al.  Behavioural effects of Advanced Cruise Control Use - a meta-analytic approach , 2005 .

[53]  D. Capone,et al.  Preface to special section , 1996, Microbial Ecology.

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

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

[56]  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 .

[57]  Steven E Shladover,et al.  Why We Should Develop a Truly Automated Highway System , 1998 .

[58]  S. Dreyfus.  FORMAL MODELS VS. HUMAN SITUATIONAL UNDERSTANDING: INHERENT LIMITATIONS ON THE MODELING OF BUSINESS EXPERTISE , 1982 .

[59]  Frank Lai,et al.  Spotting sheep in Yorkshire: using eye-tracking for studying situation awareness in a driving simulator , 2010 .