Development and Preliminary Evaluation of Reliability Displays for Automated Lane Keeping

In-vehicle automated safety features aim to increase safety; however, they are not always perfect. When automated systems fail, they leave the driver unprepared to recover quickly and safely. Reliability displays, informing the driver of the system's confidence in itself, could help keep drivers aware of the automation's status and increase safety when failures occur. This study proposed two metrics for displaying this information to the driver: automation reliability (AR), a system-centric metric; and required driver engagement (RDE), a human-centric metric. Visual displays were developed in three levels for each metric: quantitative, qualitative, and representational. Participants sorted these displays for level of AR and RDE, and rated their preference. Results showed AR displays were matched more accurately than RDE displays. Preference ratings were not significantly different between the display types. These results are discussed in terms of how these displays can be designed to ensure drivers understand vehicle automation.

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

[2]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Predictive Utility of an Objective Measure of Situation Awareness , 1990 .

[3]  Dennis K. Leedom,et al.  Training Situational Awareness Through Pattern Recognition in a Battlefield Environment , 1991 .

[4]  Lena Nilsson.  Safety effects of adaptive cruise controls in critical traffic situations , 1995 .

[5]  K. Abbott,et al.  The interfaces between flightcrews and modern flight deck systems , 1996 .

[6]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  From fly-by-wire to drive-by-wire: Safety implications of automation in vehicles , 1996 .

[7]  R. John Hansman,et al.  Development and Evaluation of an Electronic Vertical Situation Display , 1996 .

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

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

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

[11]  S. Gronlund,et al.  Situation Awareness , 2006 .

[12]  Christopher B. Mayhorn,et al.  WARNINGS AND HAZARD COMMUNICATIONS , 2006, Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics.

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

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

[15]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Designing for Situation Awareness : An Approach to User-Centered Design , 2003 .

[16]  Bruce N. Walker,et al.  Auditory Displays for In-Vehicle Technologies: , 2011 .

[17]  Linda Onnasch,et al.  Human Performance Consequences of Automated Decision Aids , 2012 .

[18]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Human Supervisory Control , 2012 .

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

[20]  Carryl L. Baldwin,et al.  Designing Unambiguous Auditory Crash Warning Systems , 2014 .

[21]  Carryl L. Baldwin,et al.  Comparison of Traditional Psychophysical and Sorting Methods for In-Vehicle Display Design , 2015 .

[22]  Huiyang Li,et al.  Using Modeling and Simulation to Predict Operator Performance and Automation-Induced Complacency With Robotic Automation , 2015, Hum. Factors.

[23]  Paul Strauss.  Human Factors In Engineering And Design , 2016 .

[24]  Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles , 2022 .