Contrasting models of driver behaviour in emergencies using retrospective verbalisations and network analysis

Automated assistance in driving emergencies aims to improve the safety of our roads by avoiding or mitigating the effects of accidents. However, the behavioural implications of such systems remain unknown. This paper introduces the driver decision-making in emergencies (DDMiEs) framework to investigate how the level and type of automation may affect driver decision-making and subsequent responses to critical braking events using network analysis to interrogate retrospective verbalisations. Four DDMiE models were constructed to represent different levels of automation within the driving task and its effects on driver decision-making. Findings suggest that whilst automation does not alter the decision-making pathway (e.g. the processes between hazard detection and response remain similar), it does appear to significantly weaken the links between information-processing nodes. This reflects an unintended yet emergent property within the task network that could mean that we may not be improving safety in the way we expect. Practitioner Summary: This paper contrasts models of driver decision-making in emergencies at varying levels of automation using the Southampton University Driving Simulator. Network analysis of retrospective verbalisations indicates that increasing the level of automation in driving emergencies weakens the link between information-processing nodes essential for effective decision-making.

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

[2]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data , 1984 .

[3]  Mark S. Young,et al.  Malleable Attentional Resources Theory: A New Explanation for the Effects of Mental Underload on Performance , 2002, Hum. Factors.

[4]  Paul M Salmon Distributed situation awareness: Advances in theory, measurement and application to team work , 2008 .

[5]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  Representing distributed cognition in complex systems: how a submarine returns to periscope depth , 2014, Ergonomics.

[6]  Fred Paas,et al.  Effects of studying sequences of process-oriented and product-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer efficiency , 2008 .

[7]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Sub-systems on the road to vehicle automation: Hands and feet free but not 'mind' free driving , 2014 .

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

[9]  R. Fuller Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. , 2005, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[10]  Roberta Calderwood,et al.  Critical decision method for eliciting knowledge , 1989, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[11]  Lisanne Bainbridge,et al.  Verbal reports as evidence of the process operator's knowledge , 1999, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[12]  Victoria A Banks,et al.  What the drivers do and do not tell you: using verbal protocol analysis to investigate driver behaviour in emergency situations , 2014, Ergonomics.

[13]  R Parasuraman,et al.  Designing automation for human use: empirical studies and quantitative models , 2000, Ergonomics.

[14]  Christine Duffield,et al.  A comparison of novice and expert nurses' cue collection during clinical decision-making: verbal protocol analysis. , 2009, International journal of nursing studies.

[15]  N. Stanton,et al.  All for one and one for all: Representing teams as a collection of individuals and an individual collective using a network perceptual cycle approach , 2014 .

[16]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  Command and control in emergency services operations: a social network analysis , 2006, Ergonomics.

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

[18]  Steve Parkes,et al.  Trends in the use of verbal protocol analysis in software engineering research , 2003, Behav. Inf. Technol..

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

[20]  N. Stanton,et al.  What could they have been thinking? How sociotechnical system design influences cognition: a case study of the Stockwell shooting , 2011, Ergonomics.

[21]  Marika Hoedemaeker,et al.  Driver behavior in an emergency situation in the Automated Highway System , 1999 .

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

[23]  Tom A. B. Snijders,et al.  Social Network Analysis , 2011, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[24]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Developing expertise in military communications planning: do verbal reports change with experience? , 2012, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[25]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  Engineering Psychology and Human Performance , 1984 .

[26]  Annika F L Larsson,et al.  Driver usage and understanding of adaptive cruise control. , 2012, Applied ergonomics.

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

[28]  Brendan Ryan,et al.  Use of concurrent and retrospective verbal protocols to investigate workers' thoughts during a manual-handling task. , 2007, Applied ergonomics.

[29]  Poong Hyun Seong,et al.  Measuring situation awareness of operation teams in NPPs using a verbal protocol analysis , 2012 .

[30]  Sandra Knapp,et al.  Command and control , 2008, Nature.

[31]  F. Paas,et al.  How to Optimize Learning From Animated Models: A Review of Guidelines Based on Cognitive Load , 2008 .

[32]  David B. Kaber,et al.  The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task , 2004 .

[33]  A. Bandura Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory , 1985 .

[34]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Detection of new in-path targets by drivers using Stop & Go Adaptive Cruise Control. , 2011, Applied ergonomics.

[35]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  Cognitive compatibility of motorcyclists and car drivers. , 2011, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[36]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Hands and Feet Free Driving: Ready or Not? , 2016 .

[37]  I. Lau A SYSTEMIC MODEL FOR DRIVER-IN-CONTROL , 2003 .

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

[39]  D. Wiegmann,et al.  Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: an integrative review , 2007 .