Rebuilding drivers ’ situation awareness during take-over requests in level 3 automated cars

Future, level 3 automated vehicles will enable drivers to undertake non-driving-related secondary tasks while the vehicle is in control. This is likely to impair their situation awareness, and consequently affect their ability to resume control in situations where the vehicle cannot operate autonomously. Nevertheless, proposed take-over requests typically demand that the driver ‘take control’ without attempting to assess or rebuild their situation awareness. In a longitudinal simulator study, forty-nine experienced drivers completed five 30-minute ‘commutes’ (MondayFriday). The route incorporated an extended episode of automated driving enabling drivers to undertake secondary tasks of their choosing. Take-over requests/HMIs were inspired by the driving skills hierarchy, with twenty-five participants receiving novel ‘top-down’ guidance (tactical followed by control), encouraging them to check for hazards prior to providing control, and the others received traditional ‘bottom-up’ (control) instruction. In addition, participants were provided with either detailed system feedback during periods of automation, or no feedback. This resulted in four conditions in a 2x2 between-subjects design. Following an unexpected, emergency take-over request on day four, drivers with ‘top-down’ guidance checked their mirrors significantly more times during the handover. Additionally, recipients of system feedback were demonstrably ready to drive (based on recognised physical indicators) sooner in response to the take-over request. There were no differences in lateral and longitudinal vehicle control and prevalence of unsafe driving behaviours after the emergency handover. Results can inform the design of ‘top-down’ hand-over HMIs and strategies to help drivers rebuild their situation awareness prior to resuming manual control, following periods of automation.

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

[2]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Highly Automated Driving, Secondary Task Performance, and Driver State , 2012, Hum. Factors.

[3]  Lana M Trick,et al.  Driving in fog: the effects of driving experience and visibility on speed compensation and hazard avoidance. , 2012, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[4]  Carlos Busso,et al.  Driver mirror-checking action detection using multi-modal signals , 2013 .

[5]  Klaus Bengler,et al.  “Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop? , 2013 .

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

[7]  Michael Weber,et al.  Autonomous driving: investigating the feasibility of car-driver handover assistance , 2015, AutomotiveUI.

[8]  Fredrick Ekman,et al.  Creating appropriate trust for autonomous vehicles , 2015 .

[9]  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.

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

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

[12]  David R. Large,et al.  A Longitudinal Simulator Study to Explore Drivers’ Behaviour During Highly-Automated Driving , 2017 .

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

[14]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Rolling Out the Red (and Green) Carpet: Supporting Driver Decision Making in Automation-to-Manual Transitions , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems.