Warning Reliability and Driver Performance in Naturalistic Driving

Objective: This study examines how naturalistic driving performance is influenced by the perceived reliability of an in-vehicle warning system using a unique measure of perceived reliability. Background: Prior studies of warning reliability conducted in simulator and test-track experiments demonstrate that the objective reliability of a warning can influence a driver's responsiveness to that warning. Methods: Driver responses to lateral drift warnings (LDWs) were examined to determine if the latency to initiate a corrective steering response was related to the subjective reliability of prior system performance. An operational definition of subjective reliability was developed based on measures of the proportion of LDWs responded to by a steering correction in the preceding 24-hr period — the day proportion. Age, gender, weather condition, light level, road class, weekday status, and day proportion were used to model correction latency in a linear model. Results: A main effect of day proportion was found, suggesting that reaction time to respond decreases by about 375 ms as the day proportion increases from 0 to 1. Conclusion: The study illustrates a method of quantifying subjective reliability and performance using naturalistic data. The results suggest that latency to make a steering correction is inversely related to the perceived reliability of the warning system in the 24 hr preceding the warning. Application: The results have direct application to the method of assessing the efficacy of in-vehicle collision warning systems, suggesting that use of a perceived reliability measure may better predict a driver's disposition to respond to a warning.

[1]  James R. Sayer,et al.  Road Departure Crash Warning System Field Operational Test: Methodology and Results. Volume 1: Technical Report , 2006 .

[2]  David M. Schultz,et al.  False Alarms and Close Calls: A Conceptual Model of Warning Accuracy , 2007 .

[3]  P A Hancock,et al.  Alarm effectiveness in driver-centred collision-warning systems. , 1997, Ergonomics.

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

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

[6]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: a synthesis of the literature , 2007 .

[7]  Monica N. Lees,et al.  The influence of distraction and driving context on driver response to imperfect collision warning systems , 2007, Ergonomics.

[8]  David Shinar,et al.  Imperfect in-vehicle collision avoidance warning systems can aid distracted drivers , 2007 .

[9]  James P Bliss,et al.  Alarm mistrust in automobiles: how collision alarm reliability affects driving. , 2003, Applied ergonomics.

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

[11]  Jeffrey H. Everson,et al.  RUN-OFF-ROAD COLLISION AVOIDANCE USING IVHS COUNTERMEASURES FINAL REPORT. , 1999 .

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

[13]  Sjaanie Narelle Koppel,et al.  Epidemiology of older driver crashes - Identifying older driver risk factors and exposure patterns , 2006 .

[14]  Ji Gao,et al.  Extending the decision field theory to model operators' reliance on automation in supervisory control situations , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[15]  Beth T. Stalvey,et al.  Driving avoidance and functional impairment in older drivers. , 1998, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[16]  David Shinar,et al.  Imperfect In-Vehicle Collision Avoidance Warning Systems Can Aid Drivers , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[17]  Dean A. Pomerleau,et al.  Run-Off Road Collision Avoidance Using IVHS Countermeasures: Task 3 Report-Volume II , 1995 .

[18]  David Shinar,et al.  Effects of an In-Vehicle Collision Avoidance Warning System on Short- and Long-Term Driving Performance , 2002, Hum. Factors.

[19]  Joachim Meyer,et al.  Effects of Warning Validity and Proximity on Responses to Warnings , 2001, Hum. Factors.

[20]  A J McLean,et al.  Self-regulation of driving and its relationship to driving ability among older adults. , 2006, Accident; analysis and prevention.