The role of intervening variables in driver-ACC cooperation

This paper analyzes the behavior of drivers using Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) within the theoretical framework of Human-Machine Cooperation. The study was carried out on a driving simulator. Driving task performance data and responses to a trust questionnaire were analyzed in order to examine the relationship between driver reliance on ACC and such intervening variables as trust, perceived workload and perceived risk. The participants were divided a posteriori into two groups according to their use of the ACC device during the experimental run. The results show that high-use drivers seemed to cooperate more with ACC than low-use drivers, who tended to perceive more risk and a higher workload. These findings are discussed in the light of Riley's theory of operator reliance on automation.

[1]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Experimental Analysis and Measurement of Situation Awareness , 1995 .

[2]  Fabrice Vienne,et al.  Trust and the use of adaptive cruise control: a study of a cut-in situation , 2006, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[3]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Trust: Key Elements in Human Supervisory Control Domains , 2001, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[4]  Marika Hoedemaeker,et al.  Behavioural adaptation to driving with an adaptive cruise control (ACC) , 1998 .

[5]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust , 1998 .

[6]  John D. Lee,et al.  Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation , 1994, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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

[8]  Regina A. Pomranky,et al.  The role of trust in automation reliance , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[9]  John D. Lee,et al.  Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance , 2004 .

[10]  Lisanne Bainbridge,et al.  Ironies of automation , 1982, Autom..

[11]  N. Moray,et al.  Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. , 1996, Ergonomics.

[12]  F. Schoorman,et al.  A model of relational leadership: The integration of trust and leader–member exchange , 2000 .

[13]  Cristiano Castelfranchi,et al.  Modeling Social Action for AI Agents , 1997, IJCAI.

[14]  Anthony Loiselet,et al.  La gestion des interférences et du référentiel commun dans la coopération : implications pour la conception , 2001 .

[15]  B. Oken,et al.  Vigilance, alertness, or sustained attention: physiological basis and measurement , 2006, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[16]  Rino Falcone,et al.  Trust is much more than subjective probability: mental components and sources of trust , 2000, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[17]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Attention and Effort , 1973 .

[18]  D. Jolly,et al.  Trust between man and machine in a teleoperation system , 1996 .

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

[20]  J. Lewis,et al.  Trust as a Social Reality , 1985 .

[21]  Bonnie M. Muir,et al.  Trust in automation. I: Theoretical issues in the study of trust and human intervention in automated systems , 1994 .

[22]  B. Rajaonah,et al.  Study of Driver Trust During Cooperation with Adaptive Cruise Control , 2006 .

[23]  John Han Numan.  Knowledge-based systems as companions : Trust, human computer interaction and complex systems , 1998 .

[24]  Jean-Michel Hoc,et al.  Towards a cognitive approach to human-machine cooperation in dynamic situations , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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

[26]  P Fancher,et al.  Intelligent Cruise Control Field Operational Test , 1997 .

[27]  Mark S. Young,et al.  Drive-by-wire: The case of driver workload and reclaiming control with adaptive cruise control , 1997 .

[28]  R Parasuraman,et al.  MONITORING OF AUTOMATED SYSTEM , 1996 .

[29]  Susan Wiedenbeck,et al.  On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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

[31]  S. Shapiro.  The Social Control of Impersonal Trust , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[32]  Victor A. Riley,et al.  Operator reliance on automation: Theory and data. , 1996 .

[33]  Ann M. Bisantz,et al.  Assessment of operator trust in and utilization of automated decision-aids under different framing conditions , 2001 .

[34]  M. Loeb,et al.  The Psychology of Vigilance , 1982 .

[35]  N. Mackworth.  The Breakdown of Vigilance during Prolonged Visual Search 1 , 1948 .

[36]  N Moray,et al.  Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. , 1992, Ergonomics.

[37]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Performance Consequences of Automation-Induced 'Complacency' , 1993 .

[38]  Shoshana Zuboff,et al.  In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power , 1989 .

[39]  Mark R. Lehto,et al.  Foundations for an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Automated Systems , 2000 .

[40]  Mustapha Mouloua,et al.  Automation and Human Performance : Theory and Applications , 1996 .

[41]  Patrick Millot,et al.  An attempt for generic concepts toward human-machine cooperation , 1998, SMC'98 Conference Proceedings. 1998 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (Cat. No.98CH36218).

[42]  Hall P. Beck,et al.  A Framework of Automation Use , 2001 .

[43]  N. Luhmann.  Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives , 2000 .

[44]  Christina M. Rudin-Brown,et al.  BEHAVIOURAL ADAPTATION TO ADAPTIVE CRUISE CONTROL (ACC): IMPLICATIONS FOR PREVENTIVE STRATEGIES , 2004 .