Complementing Haptic Shared Control With Visual Feedback for Obstacle Avoidance

For automated vehicles (SAE Level 2-3) part of the challenge lies in communicating to the driver what control actions the automation is taking and will take, and what its capabilities are. A promising approach is haptic shared control (HSC), which uses continuous torques on the steering wheel to communicate the automation’s current control actions. However, torques on the steering wheel cannot communicate future spatiotemporal constraints, that might be required to judge appropriate overtaking or obstacle avoidance. A visualisation of predicted vehicle trajectory, along with velocity-dependent constraints with respect to achievable trajectories is proposed. The goal of this paper is to experimentally compare obstacle avoidance behaviour while driving with the designed visualisation against driving with a previously designed HSC, as well as the two support systems combined. It is expected that adding visual feedback improves obstacle avoidance and user acceptance, and reduces control effort with respect to HSC only. In a driving simulator experiment, 26 participants drove three trials with each feedback condition (visual, HSC, and combination) and had to avoid obstacles that appeared with a Time to collision of either 1.85 s (critical) or 4.7 s (non-criticall). Results showed that, compared to HSC only, the HSC and visual combination yielded slightly smaller safety margins to the obstacle, a significant reduction of control activity on straights, and increased subjective acceptance rating. Visual and HSC offered a beneficial synergy, as it seemed the visual feedback allowed drivers to anticipate the effect of their steering actions on the car’s trajectory more accurately, and the HSC reduced the intra-subject variability. Future research should investigate the effects of added visual feedback in more detail, specifically in terms of the effectiveness to communicate automation capabilities and driver gaze behavior.

[1]  Arie P. van den Beukel,et al.  The road to automated driving: Dual mode and human factors considerations , 2013, 16th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC 2013).

[2]  Mark Mulder,et al.  Four design choices for haptic shared control , 2017 .

[3]  M. Mulder,et al.  Motivation for continuous haptic gas pedal feedback to support car following , 2008, 2008 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium.

[4]  Lisa C. Thomas,et al.  Visual Displays and Cognitive Tunneling: Frames of Reference Effects on Spatial Judgments and Change Detection , 2001 .

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

[6]  René van Paassen,et al.  Understanding and reducing conflicts between driver and haptic shared control , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC).

[7]  René van Paassen,et al.  A New Haptic Shared Controller Reducing Steering Conflicts , 2018, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC).

[8]  David A. Abbink,et al.  Evaluation of Haptic and Visual Cues for Repulsive or Attractive Guidance in Nonholonomic Steering Tasks , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems.

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

[10]  Oliver M. J. Carsten,et al.  How can humans understand their automated cars? HMI principles, problems and solutions , 2019, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[11]  Wilco Vreugdenhil.  Complementing Automotive Haptic Shared Control with Visual Feedback for Obstacle Avoidance , 2019 .

[12]  Mark Mulder,et al.  The effect of haptic guidance on curve negotiation behavior of young, experienced drivers , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.

[13]  Max Mulder,et al.  Aviate, Navigate: Functional Visualizations of Asymmetric Flight Envelope Limits , 2017 .

[14]  Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles , 2022 .

[15]  J. D. Lee,et al.  Application of ecological interface design to driver support systems , 2006 .

[16]  Frank Flemisch,et al.  Automation spectrum, inner / outer compatibility and other potentially useful human factors concepts for assistance and automation , 2008 .

[17]  René van Paassen,et al.  Reducing steering wheel stiffness is beneficial in supporting evasive maneuvers , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.

[18]  Kim J. Vicente,et al.  Coping with Human Errors through System Design: Implications for Ecological Interface Design , 1989, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[19]  Errol R. Hoffmann,et al.  Steering Reversals as a Measure of Driver Performance and Steering Task Difficulty , 1975 .

[20]  John M. Flach,et al.  Beyond Ecological Interface Design: Lessons From Concerns and Misconceptions , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems.

[21]  Mark Mulder,et al.  Balancing safety and support: Changing lanes with a haptic lane-keeping support system , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.

[22]  D. G. Beeftink.  Increasing Task-Sharing Performance by Haptically Assisting a Tunnel-in-the-Sky Approach , 2017 .

[23]  Katharine K. Lee,et al.  Development and Validation of the Controller Acceptance Rating Scale (CARS): Results of Empirical Research , 2001 .

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