Effects of unreliable automation, non-driving related task, and takeover time budget on drivers’ takeover performance and workload

References

• Anderson, J. M., K. Nidhi, K. D. Stanley, P. Sorensen, C. Samaras, and O. A. Oluwatola. 2014. Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policymakers. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Bainbridge, L. 1983. Ironies of Automation Analysis, Design and Evaluation of Man–Machine Systems, 129–135. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Banks, V. A., and N. A. Stanton. 2016. “Keep the Driver in Control: Automating Automobiles of the Future.” Applied Ergonomics 53: 389–395. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.06.020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bansal, P., K. M. Kockelman, and A. Singh. 2016. “Assessing Public Opinions of and Interest in New Vehicle Technologies: An Austin Perspective.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 67: 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2016.01.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beatty, J. 1982. “Task-Evoked Pupillary Responses, Processing Load, and the Structure of Processing Resources.” Psychological Bulletin 91 (2): 276–292. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.91.2.276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brookhuis, K. A., and D. De Waard. 2010. “Monitoring Drivers’ Mental Workload in Driving Simulators Using Physiological Measures.” Accident; Analysis and Prevention 42 (3): 898–903.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bueno, M., E. Dogan, F. H. Selem, E. Monacelli, S. Boverie, and A. Guillaume. 2016. “How Different Mental Workload Levels Affect the Take-Over Control After Automated Driving.” Paper presented at the 2016 IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. doi:10.1109/ITSC.2016.7795886.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, J. L., J. L. Brown, J. S. Graving, C. M. Richard, M. G. Lichty, L. P. Bacon, J. F. Morgan, H. Li, D. N. Williams, and T. Sanquist. 2018. Human Factors Design Guidance for Level 2 and Level 3 Automated Driving Concepts. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Carsten, O., F. C. Lai, Y. Barnard, A. H. Jamson, and N. Merat. 2012. “Control Task Substitution in Semiautomated Driving: Does It Matter What Aspects Are Automated?” Human Factors 54 (5): 747–761.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, W., T. Sawaragi, and Y. Horiguchi. 2019. “Measurement of Driver’s Mental Workload in Partial Autonomous Driving.” IFAC-PapersOnLine 52 (19): 347–352. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.12.083.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Social Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• De Winter, J. C., N. A. Stanton, J. S. Price, and H. Mistry. 2016. “The Effects of Driving With Different Levels of Unreliable Automation on Self-Reported Workload and Secondary Task Performance.” International Journal of Vehicle Design 70 (4): 297–324. doi:10.1504/IJVD.2016.076736.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dogan, E., V. Honnêt, S. Masfrand, and A. Guillaume. 2019. “Effects of Non-driving-Related Tasks on Takeover Performance in Different Takeover Situations in Conditionally Automated Driving.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 62: 494–504. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2019.02.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Embrey, D., C. Blackett, P. Marsden, and J. Peachey. 2006. Development of a Human Cognitive Workload Assessment Tool. MCA Final Report, Lancashire, 1–253.
   Google Scholar
• Engström, J., E. Johansson, and J. Östlund. 2005. “Effects of Visual and Cognitive Load in Real and Simulated Motorway Driving.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 8 (2): 97–120. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2005.04.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson, A., and N. A. Stanton. 2017a. “Driving Performance After Self-Regulated Control Transitions in Highly Automated Vehicles.” Human Factors 59 (8): 1233–1248. doi:10.1177/0018720817728774.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson, A., and N. A. Stanton. 2017b. “Takeover Time in Highly Automated Vehicles: Noncritical Transitions to and from Manual Control.” Human Factors 59 (4): 689–705. doi:10.1177/0018720816685832.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul, F., E. Erdfelder, A. G. Lang, and A. Buchner. 2007. “G* Power 3: A Flexible Statistical Power Analysis Program for the Social, Behavioral, and Biomedical Sciences.” Behavior Research Methods 39 (2): 175–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gold, C., I. Berisha, and K. Bengler. 2015. Utilization of Drivetime–Performing Non-driving Related Tasks While Driving Highly Automated. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 1666–1670). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Gold, C., D. Damböck, L. Lorenz, and K. Bengler. 2013. “Take Over!” How Long Does It Take to Get the Driver Back Into the Loop? In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 1938–1942). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Gower, D. W., M. G. Lilienthal, R. S. Kennedy, J. E. Fowlkes, and D. R. Baltzley. 1987. Simulator Sickness in the AH-64 Apache Combat Mission Simulator (USAARL Report No. 88-1). Fort Rucker, AL: USAARL.
   Google Scholar
• Happee, R., C. Gold, J. Radlmayr, S. Hergeth, and K. Bengler. 2017. “Take-Over Performance in Evasive Manoeuvres.” Accident; Analysis and Prevention 106: 211–222. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2017.04.017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hergeth, S., L. Lorenz, J. F. Krems, and L. Toenert. 2015. Effects of Take-Over Requests and Cultural Background on Automation Trust in Highly Automated Driving. Proceedings of the 8th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design: driving assessment 2015, Snowbird, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Hirst, S. 1997. Of Collision Warnings. Ergonomics and Safety of Intelligent Driver Interfaces, 203. Loughborough, UK: Loughborough University.
   Google Scholar
• Hjälmdahl, M., S. Krupenia, and B. Thorslund. 2017. “Driver Behaviour and Driver Experience of Partial and Fully Automated Truck Platooning–a Simulator Study.” European Transport Research Review 9 (1): 8. doi:10.1007/s12544-017-0222-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horrey, W. J., and C. D. Wickens. 2004. “Driving and Side Task Performance: The Effects of Display Clutter, Separation, and Modality.” Human Factors 46 (4): 611–624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iqbal, S. T., P. D. Adamczyk, X. S. Zheng, and B. P. Bailey. 2005. Towards an Index of Opportunity: Understanding Changes in Mental Workload During Task Execution. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Portland, Oregon, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Jamson, A. H., N. Merat, O. M. Carsten, and F. C. Lai. 2013. “Behavioural Changes in Drivers Experiencing Highly-Automated Vehicle Control in Varying Traffic Conditions.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 30: 116–125. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2013.02.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenness, J. W., N. D. Lerner, S. Mazor, J. S. Osberg, and B. C. Tefft. 2008. Use of Advanced In-vehicle Technology by Young and Older Early Adopters. Survey results on adaptive cruise control systems. Report no. DOT HS, 810 917. Washington, DC: USDOT/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, David M. 2007. Simulator Sickness Research Summary. ARMY RESEARCH INST FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES FORT RUCKER AL. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA474304.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Kaber, D. B., Y. Liang, Y. Zhang, M. L. Rogers, and S. Gangakhedkar. 2012. “Driver Performance Effects of Simultaneous Visual and Cognitive Distraction and Adaptation Behavior.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 15 (5): 491–501. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2012.05.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy, R. S., N. E. Lane, K. S. Berbaum, and M. G. Lilienthal. 1993. “Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An Enhanced Method for Quantifying Simulator Sickness.” The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 3 (3): 203–220. doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3.
   Google Scholar
• Kun, A. L., O. Palinko, Z. Medenica, and P. A. Heeman. 2013. “On the Feasibility of Using Pupil Diameter to Estimate Cognitive Load Changes for In-Vehicle Spoken Dialogues.” In Interspeech : 3766–3770. http://andrewkun.com/papers/2013/kun%20et%20al%20interspeech%202013.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Large, D. R., V. A. Banks, G. Burnett, S. Baverstock, and L. Skrypchuk. 2017. “Exploring the Behaviour of Distracted Drivers during Different Levels of Automation in Driving.”. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention (DDI2017), March. Champs-sur-Marne, France.
   Google Scholar
• Liang, Y., and J. D. Lee. 2010. “Combining Cognitive and Visual Distraction: Less than the Sum of Its Parts.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 42 (3): 881–890. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.05.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Litman, T. 2017. Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions. Victoria, Canada: Victoria Transport Policy Institute Victoria.
   Google Scholar
• Lorenz, L., P. Kerschbaum, and J. Schumann. 2014. “Designing Take over Scenarios for Automated Driving: How Does Augmented Reality Support the Driver to Get Back into the Loop?” In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 1681–1685). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Louw, T., G. Markkula, E. Boer, R. Madigan, O. Carsten, and N. Merat. 2017. “Coming Back Into the Loop: Drivers’ Perceptual-Motor Performance in Critical Events After Automated Driving.” Accident; Analysis and Prevention 108: 9–18. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2017.08.011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louw, T., N. Merat, and H. Jamson. 2015. Engaging With Highly Automated Driving: To Be or Not to Be in the Loop? In 8th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design. Leeds. Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Marquart, G., C. Cabrall, and J. de Winter. 2015. “Review of Eye-Related Measures of Drivers’ Mental Workload.” Procedia Manufacturing 3: 2854–2861. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.783.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, A. D., H. Alambeigi, J. Engström, G. Markkula, T. Vogelpohl, J. Dunne, and N. Yuma. 2019. “Toward Computational Simulations of Behavior During Automated Driving Takeovers: A Review of the Empirical and Modeling Literatures.” Human Factors 61 (4): 642–688. doi:10.1177/0018720819829572.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merat, N., A. H. Jamson, F. C. Lai, and O. Carsten. 2012. “Highly Automated Driving, Secondary Task Performance, and Driver State.” Human Factors 54 (5): 762–771.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merat, N., H. A. Jamson, F. Lai, and O. Carsten. 2014. Human Factors of Highly Automated Driving: results from the EASY and CityMobil Projects Road Vehicle Automation, 113–125 Springer, Cham.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, S. 2001. “Workload Measures.” National Advanced Driving Simulator. Oakland, IA: The University of Iowa.
   Google Scholar
• Mok, B., M. Johns, K. J. Lee, D. Miller, D. Sirkin, P. Ive, and W. Ju. 2015. “Emergency, Automation Off: Unstructured Transition Timing for Distracted Drivers of Automated Vehicles.” Paper Presented at the 2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.
   Google Scholar
• Naismith, L. M., J. J. Cheung, C. Ringsted, and R. B. Cavalcanti. 2015. “Limitations of Subjective Cognitive Load Measures in Simulation‐Based Procedural Training.” Medical Education 49 (8): 805–814.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palinko, O, and A. Kun. 2011. Exploring the Influence of Light and Cognitive Load on Pupil Diameter in Driving Simulator Studies. University of Iowa, Iowa City. doi:10.17077/drivingassessment.1416.
   Google Scholar
• Palinko, O, and A. L. Kun. 2012. “Exploring the Effects of Visual Cognitive Load and Illumination on Pupil Diameter in Driving Simulators.” Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. Santa Barbara, CA. doi:10.1145/2168556.2168650.
   Google Scholar
• Palinko, O., S. Goyal, and A. L. Kun. 2010. A Pilot Study of the Influence of Illumination and Cognitive Load on Pupil Diameter in a Driving Simulator: AutomotiveUI. Adjunct Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI 2010), November 11-12, 2010, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Park, J., K. Iagnemma, and B. Reimer. 2019. “A User Study of Semi-Autonomous and Autonomous Highway Driving: An Interactive Simulation Study.” IEEE Pervasive Computing 18 (1): 49–58. doi:10.1109/MPRV.2018.2873850.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pauzié, A. 2008. “A Method to Assess the Driver Mental Workload: The Driving Activity Load Index (DALI).” IET Intelligent Transport Systems 2 (4): 315–322. doi:10.1049/iet-its:20080023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petermeijer, S., S. Cieler, and J. C. De Winter. 2017. “Comparing Spatially Static and Dynamic Vibrotactile Take-Over Requests in the Driver Seat.” Accident; Analysis and Prevention 99 (Pt A): 218–227. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2016.12.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petermeijer, S. M., J. C. De Winter, and K. J. Bengler. 2016. “Vibrotactile Displays: A Survey with a View on Highly Automated Driving.” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 17 (4): 897–907. doi:10.1109/TITS.2015.2494873.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfleging, B., D. K. Fekety, A. Schmidt, and A. L. Kun. 2016. “A Model Relating Pupil Diameter to Mental Workload and Lighting Conditions.” Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. San Jose, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Radlmayr, J., C. Gold, L. Lorenz, M. Farid, and K. Bengler. 2014. “How Traffic Situations and Non-Driving Related Tasks Affect the Take-Over Quality in Highly Automated Driving.” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 58 (1): 2063–2067. doi:10.1177/1541931214581434.
   Google Scholar
• SAE 2021. “SAE Levels of Driving Automation™ Refined for Clarity and International Audience.” https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update
   Google Scholar
• Saffarzadeh, M., N. Nadimi, S. Naseralavi, and A. R. Mamdoohi. 2013. “A General Formulation for Time-to-Collision Safety Indicator.” In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Transport (Vol. 166, No. 5, pp. 294–304). Thomas Telford Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Schwalk, M., N. Kalogerakis, and T. Maier. 2015. “Driver Support by a Vibrotactile Seat Matrix–Recognition, Adequacy and Workload of Tactile Patterns in Take-Over Scenarios during Automated Driving.” Procedia Manufacturing 3: 2466–2473. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.507.
   Google Scholar
• Shahini, F. 2021. “Effects of Automation and Takeover Time Budget on Young Drivers’Performance and Workload.” Master thesis. Texas A&M University.
   Google Scholar
• Shahini, F., J. Park, and M. Zahabi. 2021. “Effects of Unreliable Automation and Takeover Time Budget on Young Drivers’ Mental Workload.” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 65 (1): 1082–1086. doi:10.1177/1071181321651125.
   Google Scholar
• Shahini, F., M. Zahabi, B. Patranella, and A. Mohammed Abdul Razak. 2020. Police Officer Interactions With In-vehicle Technologies: An On-Road Investigation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 64, No. 1, 1976–1980). Sage, CA; Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. doi:10.1177/1071181320641476.
   Google Scholar
• Son, J., Y. Lee, and M. H. Kim. 2011. “Impact of Traffic Environment and Cognitive Workload on Older Drivers’ Behavior in Simulated Driving.” International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing 12 (1): 135–141. doi:10.1007/s12541-011-0017-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TxDOT. 2020. Accessed February 2021. http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/rdw/rdw.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ulahannan, A., P. Jennings, S. Thompson, and S. Birrell. 2020. “The Interface Challenge for Partially Automated Vehicles: How Driver Characteristics Affect Information Usage over Time.” In Human Factors in Intelligent Vehicles, 21–40. River Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Vogelpohl, T., F. Gehlmann, and M. Vollrath. 2019. “Task Interruption and Control Recovery Strategies After Take-Over Requests Emphasize Need for Measures of Situation Awareness.” Human Factors 62: 1190–1211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogelpohl, T., M. Kühn, T. Hummel, T. Gehlert, and M. Vollrath. 2018. “Transitioning to Manual Driving Requires Additional Time After Automation Deactivation.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 55: 464–482. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2018.03.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wan, J., and C. Wu. 2018. “The Effects of Lead Time of Take-Over Request and Nondriving Tasks on Taking-over Control of Automated Vehicles.” IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 48 (6): 582–591. doi:10.1109/THMS.2018.2844251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wandtner, B., N. Schömig, and G. Schmidt. 2018a. “Effects of Non-driving Related Task Modalities on Takeover Performance in Highly Automated Driving.” Human Factors 60 (6): 870–881. doi:10.1177/0018720818768199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wandtner, B., N. Schömig, and G. Schmidt. 2018b. “Secondary Task Engagement and Disengagement in the Context of Highly Automated Driving.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 58: 253–263. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2018.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, M. M., W. Zhang, A. T. Winslow, M. Zahabi, F. Zhang, H. Huang, and D. B. Kaber. 2017. “Usability Comparison of Conventional Direct Control Versus Pattern Recognition Control of Transradial Prostheses.” IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 47 (6): 1146–1157. doi:10.1109/THMS.2017.2759762.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wille, M., M. Röwenstrunk, and G. Debus. 2008. “KONVOI: Electronically Coupled Truck Convoys.” D. de Waard, F.O. Flemisch, B. Lorenz, H. Oberheid, K.A. Brookhuis (Eds.), Human Factors for assistance and automation, Shaker Publishing, Maastricht, The Netherlands, p. 243.
   Google Scholar
• Wozniak, D., F. Shahini, V. Nasr, and M. Zahabi. 2021. “Analysis of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems in Police Vehicles: A Survey Study.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 83: 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2021.09.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, C., H. Wu, N. Lyu, and M. Zheng. 2019. “Take-Over Performance and Safety Analysis under Different Scenarios and Secondary Tasks in Conditionally Automated Driving.” IEEE Access. 7: 136924–136933. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2914864.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon, S. H., and Y. G. Ji. 2019. “Non-Driving-Related Tasks, Workload, and Takeover Performance in Highly Automated Driving Contexts.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 60: 620–631. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2018.11.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon, S. H., Y. W. Kim, and Y. G. Ji. 2019. “The Effects of Takeover Request Modalities on Highly Automated Car Control Transitions.” Accident; Analysis and Prevention 123: 150–158. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2018.11.018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zahabi, M., and D. Kaber. 2018. “Identification of Task Demands and Usability Issues in Police Use of Mobile Computing Terminals.” Applied Ergonomics 66: 161–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zahabi, M., F. Shahini, W. Yin, and X. Zhang. 2021. “Physical and Cognitive Demands Associated with Police In-vehicle Technology Use: An On-road Case Study.” Ergonomics 65(1): 91–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zakerian, S. A., G. Zia, G. Nasl Seraji, K. Azam, and A. Mortezapour. 2018. “Reliability and Validity of the Driver Activity Load Index for Assessing Mental Workload Among Drivers in Production Companies.” Journal of Occupational Hygiene Engineering Volume 5 (2): 65–71.
   Google Scholar
• Zeeb, K., A. Buchner, and M. Schrauf. 2015. “What Determines the Take-over Time? An Integrated Model Approach of Driver Take-Over After Automated Driving.” Accident; Analysis and Prevention 78: 212–221. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2015.02.023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeeb, K., A. Buchner, and M. Schrauf. 2016. “Is Take-Over Time All That Matters? The Impact of Visual-Cognitive Load on Driver Take-Over Quality after Conditionally Automated Driving.” Accident; Analysis and Prevention 92: 230–239. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2016.04.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, B., J. de Winter, S. Varotto, R. Happee, and M. Martens. 2019. “Determinants of Take-over Time from Automated Driving: A Meta-Analysis of 129 Studies.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 64: 285–307. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2019.04.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar