The relationship between level of engagement in a non-driving task and driver response time when taking control of an automated vehicle

Drivers of conditionally automated vehicles may occasionally be required to take control of their vehicle due to system boundaries, but their performance in such cases might be impaired if they were engaged in non-driving tasks. In this study, we conducted an experiment in a driving simulator, where the non-driving task involved playing a video game. We tested whether, after a take-over request (TOR), driver behaviour can be predicted from measures of game engagement. A sample of 28 participants drove in two counterbalanced conditions—manual driving and automated driving—and needed to change lanes at a certain time in their trip following auditory and visual requests. In the automated condition, drivers could play an endless runner game and were instructed to deactivate the automated mode to change lanes when they received a TOR. We used the proportion of glance durations on the game and the time between game sessions as indicators of game engagement. Findings showed that drivers were highly engaged in the video game during the automated driving session (more than 70% of the time) and that the inspection of driving-related areas of interests was significantly altered by this engagement. Moreover, the two indicators of game engagement predicted drivers’ response times to the TOR. Our findings suggest that indices of game engagement might assist in setting better timing for TORs and therefore, that it might be beneficial to synchronize measures of game engagement consoles with automated vehicle decision algorithms.

[1]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Examining the Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Driving Using Meta-Analytic Techniques , 2006, Hum. Factors.

[2]  Jing Feng,et al.  Age differences in the takeover of vehicle control and engagement in non-driving-related activities in simulated driving with conditional automation. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

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

[4]  Kai Puolamäki,et al.  Probabilistic approach to robust wearable gaze tracking , 2017 .

[5]  Assaf Botzer,et al.  Grip Force as a Measure of Stress in Aviation , 2015 .

[6]  Alan Kennedy,et al.  Book Review: Eye Tracking: A Comprehensive Guide to Methods and Measures , 2016, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

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

[8]  David L. Strayer,et al.  WHY DO CELL PHONE CONVERSATIONS INTERFERE WITH DRIVING , 2005 .

[9]  Frederik Naujoks,et al.  From partial and high automation to manual driving: Relationship between non-driving related tasks, drowsiness and take-over performance. , 2018, Accident; analysis and prevention.

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

[11]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  How Traffic Situations and Non-Driving Related Tasks Affect the Take-Over Quality in Highly Automated Driving , 2014 .

[12]  Assaf Botzer,et al.  Changes in physiological indices and deceleration behaviour as functions of braking demands and driver's physiological cluster , 2019, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.

[13]  T. Victor Keeping Eye and Mind on the Road , 2005 .

[14]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Take-Over Time in Highly Automated Vehicles , 2018, Driver Reactions to Automated Vehicles.

[15]  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.

[16]  Mounia Lalmas,et al.  Measuring User Engagement , 2014, Measuring User Engagement.

[17]  Yong Gu Ji,et al.  How we can measure the non-driving-task engagement in automated driving: Comparing flow experience and workload. , 2018, Applied ergonomics.

[18]  Richard Bishop Intelligent Vehicle Applications Worldwide , 2000, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[19]  Assaf Botzer,et al.  Cyclopean, Dominant, and Non-dominant Gaze Tracking for Smooth Pursuit Gaze Interaction , 2017, Journal of eye movement research.

[20]  Christopher Nowakowski,et al.  User Experience with Increasing Levels of Vehicle Automation: Overview of the Challenges and Opportunities as Vehicles Progress from Partial to High Automation , 2017 .

[21]  Joonwoo Son,et al.  Situation Awareness and Transitions in Highly Automated Driving:A Framework and Mini Review , 2017 .

[22]  Assaf Botzer,et al.  Relationship Between Kinematic and Physiological Indices During Braking Events of Different Intensities , 2018, Hum. Factors.

[23]  P. Hancock,et al.  Adaptive control in human-machine systems , 1987 .

[24]  Bryan Reimer,et al.  Predicting Secondary Task Involvement and Differences in Task Modality Using Field Highway Driving Data , 2017 .

[25]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Driving Performance After Self-Regulated Control Transitions in Highly Automated Vehicles , 2017, Hum. Factors.

[26]  Assaf Botzer,et al.  Cyclopean vs. Dominant Eye in Gaze-Interface-Tracking , 2017 .

[27]  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 .

[28]  Daniel Memmert,et al.  The effects of eye movements, age, and expertise on inattentional blindness , 2006, Consciousness and Cognition.

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

[30]  Kathrin Zeeb,et al.  What determines the take-over time? An integrated model approach of driver take-over after automated driving. , 2015, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[31]  Nasim Arbabzadeh,et al.  Integrated frameworks for knowledge discovery in human-machine complex systems using multiple data streams , 2017 .