Handover assist trials in highly automated vehicles: participant recommendations for future design

Automated vehicles with situation-specific limited driving capabilities will soon be on our roadways. With this, comes the issue of the handover of control. This is required as the automated system reaches a design or capability boundary and requires the human-driver to take control. This is a profound issue, as the driver will have reduced ‘situation awareness’ due to being ‘out-of-the-loop’ for an extended period of time. To compensate for this, vehicle designs must make use of handover assist to ensure that situation awareness is effectively transmitted to the driver prior to taking control. In the case of an approaching pre-planned geographical boundary of operation, the handover is non-critical. We draw upon strategies currently practiced in domains such as healthcare, aviation and energy manufacturing/distribution and test four methods of verbal handover in a simulated road environment with a dual-control vehicle. Participants took part in four handover conditions and provided recommendations for the future design of highly automated vehicles. We found six core themes that summarise the recommendations made by the participants of these trials, and draw upon five core implications for future design. Researchers and designers should now look to integrate a number of viable approaches to the handover to create a unified efficient, safe and usable handover protocol for highly automated vehicles. Based on user preferences, we provide some insight on possibilities for application to future design and tests.

[1]  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).

[2]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  Models of models: filtering and bias rings in depiction of knowledge structures and their implications for design , 2012, Ergonomics.

[3]  Guy H. Walker,et al.  Pilot error versus sociotechnical systems failure: a distributed situation awareness analysis of Air France 447 , 2016 .

[4]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  From ethnography to the EAST method: A tractable approach for representing distributed cognition in Air Traffic Control , 2010, Ergonomics.

[5]  Michael F. Rayo,et al.  Interactive questioning in critical care during handovers: a transcript analysis of communication behaviours by physicians, nurses and nurse practitioners , 2013, BMJ quality & safety.

[6]  D. Cumin,et al.  Read-back improves information transfer in simulated clinical crises , 2014, BMJ quality & safety.

[7]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Coping with Human Errors through System Design: Implications for Ecological Interface Design , 1989, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[8]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  The chatty co-driver: A linguistics approach applying lessons learnt from aviation incidents , 2017 .

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

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

[11]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Mental Models: Design of User Interaction and Interfaces for Domestic Energy Systems , 2017 .

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

[13]  Ronald Lardner,et al.  SAFE COMMUNICATION AT SHIFT HANDOVER: SETTING AND IMPLEMENTING STANDARDS , 1999 .

[14]  Brian Hilligoss,et al.  A handoff is not a telegram: an understanding of the patient is co-constructed , 2012, Critical Care.

[15]  Francis T. Durso,et al.  The cooperative shift change: an illustration using air traffic control , 2007 .

[16]  N Merat,et al.  Is Drivers' Situation Awareness Influenced by a Fully Automated Driving Scenario? , 2009 .

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

[18]  Guy H. Walker,et al.  Human Factors in Automotive Engineering and Technology , 2017 .

[19]  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 .

[20]  P M Salmon,et al.  Changing drivers' minds: the evaluation of an advanced driver coaching system , 2007, Ergonomics.

[21]  Emily S. Patterson,et al.  Shift Changes, Updates, and the On-Call Architecture in Space Shuttle Mission Control , 2001, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[22]  A. McEwan,et al.  Patient handover from surgery to intensive care: using Formula 1 pit‐stop and aviation models to improve safety and quality , 2007, Paediatric anaesthesia.

[23]  Victoria A Banks,et al.  Keep the driver in control: Automating automobiles of the future. , 2016, Applied ergonomics.