Influence of risk expectation on haptically cued corrective manoeuvres during near lane departure

Some driving devices are designed to prevent road departures. One such device, motor priming (MP), provides small pulses to the steering wheel towards the lane centre, without correcting the trajectory itself. Compared with the other lane departure warning systems, its higher efficacy has been demonstrated; it is hypothesised that this relies on the action of haptic cues at the sensorimotor level (Navarro, J., Mars, F., and Hoc, J.M., 2007. Lateral control assistance for car drivers: a comparison of motor priming and warning systems. Human Factors, 49 (5), 950–960). The way in which corrective manoeuvres, primed by MP, can be influenced by processes that operate at higher levels of cognitive control, such as risk evaluation, is an issue. Results showed that MP improved all indicators of steering efficiency, starting with reaction times. Risk expectation and situation analysis did not influence reaction times but came into play soon after the corrective manoeuvre was initiated. Thus, although MP triggered the response at the sensorimotor level, higher levels of cognition (symbolic control) quickly modulated the execution of the corrective manoeuvre. Practitioner Summary: This paper showed that corrective manoeuvres following directional pulses on the steering wheel (motor priming) are modulated by risk expectation. The conclusion may be of interest for designers of haptics-based automation such as lane departure warning and lane keeping assistance systems.

[1]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[2]  Y. Delanne,et al.  Méthodologie de validation du logiciel de dynamique automobile CALLAS : Dynamique du véhicule automobile et ferroviaire , 1997 .

[3]  Jean-Michel Hoc,et al.  Objective and subjective evaluation of motor priming and warning systems applied to lateral control assistance. , 2010, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[4]  Bruno Lecoutre,et al.  Specific inference in ANOVA: From significance tests to Bayesian procedures , 1983 .

[5]  Jean-Michel Hoc,et al.  Lateral Control Assistance for Car Drivers: A Comparison of Motor Priming and Warning Systems , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[6]  Håkan Jansson,et al.  An analysis of driver’s steering behaviour during auditory or haptic warnings for the designing of lane departure warning system , 2003 .

[7]  Équipe PsyCoTec.  Driving around bends with manipulated eye-steering coordination , 2008 .

[8]  J. Hoc,et al.  Cognitive Control Dynamics for Reaching a Satisficing Performance in Complex Dynamic Situations , 2007 .

[9]  Wassim G. Najm,et al.  Pre-Crash Scenario Typology for Crash Avoidance Research , 2007 .

[10]  John C. Rothwell,et al.  What do reflex and voluntary mean? Modern views on an ancient debate , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[11]  Karsten Lemmer,et al.  Reflektas: lane departure prevention system based on behavioural control , 2008 .

[12]  Hans-Rüdiger Pfister,et al.  – a simulator study , 2011 .

[13]  Carryl L. Baldwin.  Verbal collision avoidance messages during simulated driving: perceived urgency, alerting effectiveness and annoyance , 2011, Ergonomics.

[14]  C. Spence,et al.  The differential effect of vibrotactile and auditory cues on visual spatial attention , 2006, Ergonomics.

[15]  Paul Milgram,et al.  The Development of a Time-Related Measure to Describe Driving Strategy , 1984 .

[16]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Information Processing and Human-Machine Interaction , 1986 .

[17]  Thomas Denoual,et al.  Drivers' Perception of Loss of Adherence in Bends: Influence of Motion Rendering , 2011, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[18]  Mark Mulder,et al.  Haptic shared control: smoothly shifting control authority? , 2012, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[19]  John A. Michon,et al.  A critical view of driver behavior models: What do we know , 1985 .

[20]  Richard van der Horst,et al.  Occlusion as a measure for visual workload: an overview of TNO occlusion research in car driving. , 2004, Applied ergonomics.

[21]  Samuel G Charlton,et al.  Explicit and implicit processes in behavioural adaptation to road width. , 2006, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[22]  Henry Rouanet,et al.  Bayesian methods for assessing importance of effects. , 1996 .

[23]  Mark S. Young,et al.  Cooperation between drivers and automation: implications for safety , 2009 .

[24]  K. A. BROOKHUIS,et al.  Criteria for driver impairment , 2003, Ergonomics.

[25]  R. Brent Gillespie,et al.  Sharing Control Between Humans and Automation Using Haptic Interface: Primary and Secondary Task Performance Benefits , 2005, Hum. Factors.

[26]  Daniel Mestre,et al.  The role of edge lines in curve driving , 2009 .

[27]  B A Jonah,et al.  Sensation seeking and risky driving: a review and synthesis of the literature. , 1997, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[28]  J A Michon.  Dealing with danger , 1979 .

[29]  Jordan Navarro,et al.  Lateral control assistance in car driving: classification, review and future prospects , 2011 .

[30]  Leonard Evans,et al.  Human behavior and traffic safety , 2011 .

[31]  John R Anderson,et al.  An integrated theory of the mind. , 2004, Psychological review.

[32]  Karel A Brookhuis,et al.  Effects of steering demand on lane keeping behaviour, self-reports, and physiology. A simulator study. , 2011, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[33]  Laura Michelle Stanley,et al.  HAPTIC AND AUDITORY INTERFACES AS A COLLISION AVOIDANCE TECHNIQUE DURING ROADWAY DEPARTURES AND DRIVER PERCEPTION OF THESE MODALITIES , 2006 .