Engaging in NDRTs affects drivers’ responses and glance patterns after silent automation failures

Abstract The aim of this study was to understand driver responses to “silent” failures in automated driving, where automation failed during a simulator drive, without a take-over warning. The effect of a visual non-driving related task (NDRT) and a road-based vigilance task presented drivers’ take-over response and visual attention was also investigated. Currently, automated driving systems face a number of limitations that require control to be handed back to the driver. Much of the research to date has focused on explicit take-over requests (ToRs) and shows that drivers struggle to resume control safely, exacerbated by disengagement from the driving task, for instance, due to the presence of NDRTs. However, little is known about whether, and how, drivers will respond to more subtle automation failures that come without a warning, and how this is affected by NDRT engagement. Thirty participants drove a simulated automated drive in two conditions, which had 6 silent automation failures each (3 on a Curve, 3 in a Straight), with no ToRs. In one condition, drivers were required to constantly monitor the road, which was enforced by a road-based vigilance task (VMS Only). In the other, drivers performed an additional visual NDRT, requiring them to divide their attention (VMS + Arrows). Results showed that, in both conditions, all drivers eventually detected and responded to all silent automation failures. However, engaging in an additional NDRT during automation resulted in significantly more lane excursions and longer take-over times. Adding a visual NDRT not only changed the distribution of drivers’ visual attention before and after the failure but also how they divided their attention between information on the road environment and the human–machine interface, which provided information on automation status. These results provide support for how driver monitoring systems may be used to detect drivers’ visual attention to the driving task and surroundings, and used as a tool for encouraging driver intervention, when required.

[1]  Kathrin Zeeb,et al.  Is take-over time all that matters? The impact of visual-cognitive load on driver take-over quality after conditionally automated driving. , 2016, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[2]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Surrogate in-vehicle information systems and driver behaviour: effects of visual and cognitive load in simulated rural driving , 2005 .

[3]  M. Endsley.  Autonomous Driving Systems: A Preliminary Naturalistic Study of the Tesla Model S , 2017 .

[4]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  How the Duration of Automated Driving Influences Take-Over Performance and Gaze Behavior , 2017 .

[5]  Samantha Jamson,et al.  The design of an in-vehicle assistance system to support eco-driving , 2015 .

[6]  Frederik Diederichs,et al.  Take-Over Requests for Automated Driving , 2015 .

[7]  Natasha Merat,et al.  The effect of varying levels of vehicle automation on drivers’ lane changing behaviour , 2018, PloS one.

[8]  Maximilian Schwalm,et al.  Uncanny and Unsafe Valley of Assistance and Automation: First Sketch and Application to Vehicle Automation , 2017 .

[9]  M. A. Recarte,et al.  Effects of verbal and spatial-imagery tasks on eye fixations while driving. , 2000 .

[10]  Alexandra Neukum,et al.  Secondary task engagement and vehicle automation - comparing the effects of different automation levels in an on-road experiment , 2016 .

[11]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Coming back into the loop: Drivers' perceptual-motor performance in critical events after automated driving. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[12]  Charles A. Green,et al.  The “Out-of-the-Loop” concept in automated driving: proposed definition, measures and implications , 2018, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[13]  Mario Muñoz Organero,et al.  GAFU: Using a Gamification Tool to Save Fuel , 2015, IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine.

[14]  Gerald McGwin,et al.  The Prevalence of Distraction Among Passenger Vehicle Drivers: A Roadside Observational Approach , 2015, Traffic injury prevention.

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

[16]  Joel Johansson,et al.  Automation Expectation Mismatch: Incorrect Prediction Despite Eyes on Threat and Hands on Wheel , 2018, Hum. Factors.

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

[18]  Victoria A Banks,et al.  Is partially automated driving a bad idea? Observations from an on-road study. , 2018, Applied ergonomics.

[19]  Alexandra Neukum,et al.  The effect of urgency of take-over requests during highly automated driving under distraction conditions , 2014 .

[20]  Charles A. Green,et al.  Human Factors Issues Associated with Limited Ability Autonomous Driving Systems: Drivers’ Allocation of Visual Attention to the Forward Roadway , 2017 .

[21]  Allison M. Okamura,et al.  Motor learning affects car-to-driver handover in automated vehicles , 2016, Science Robotics.

[22]  Tal Oron-Gilad,et al.  The Effects of Continuous Driving-Related Feedback on Drivers’ Response to Automation Failures , 2017 .

[23]  Phil Blythe,et al.  Investigation of older driver's takeover performance in highly automated vehicles in adverse weather conditions , 2018, IET Intelligent Transport Systems.

[24]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Were they in the loop during automated driving? Links between visual attention and crash potential , 2016, Injury Prevention.

[25]  Gordon Rumschlag,et al.  The effects of texting on driving performance in a driving simulator: the influence of driver age. , 2015, Accident; analysis and prevention.