Test procedure for evaluating the human–machine interface of vehicles with automated driving systems

References

• Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Statement of Principles, Criteria and Verification Procedures on Driver Interactions with Advanced In-Vehicle Information and Communication Systems. Washington, DC: Author; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Burns P. Human factors: unknowns, knowns and the forgotten. Paper presented at: 2018 SIP-adus Workshop Human Factors; 2018; Tokyo, Japan.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell JL, Brown JL, Graving JS, et al. Human Factors Design Guidance for Driver–Vehicle Interfaces. Washington, DC: NHTSA; 2016. Report No. DOT HS 812 360.
   Google Scholar
• Eriksson A, Stanton NA. Takeover time in highly automated vehicles: noncritical transitions to and from manual control. Hum Factors. 2017;59:689–705.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldhütter A, Segler C, Bengler K. Does shifting between conditionally and partially automated driving lead to a loss of mode awareness? In: Stanton A, ed. International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2017:730–741.
   Google Scholar
• Forster Y, Hergeth S, Naujoks F, Beggiato M, Krems J, Keinath A. Learning to use automation: behavioral changes in interaction with automated driving systems. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2019;62:599–614.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forster Y, Hergeth S, Naujoks F, Krems JF. Unskilled and unaware: subpar users of automated driving systems make spurious decisions. In: Adjunct Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery; 2018:159–163.
   Google Scholar
• Gold C, Happee R, Bengler K. Modeling take-over performance in level 3 conditionally automated vehicles. Accid Anal Prev. 2018;116:3–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hergeth S, Lorenz L, Krems JF. Prior familiarization with takeover requests affects drivers’ takeover performance and automation trust. Hum Factors. 2017;59:457–470.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. Intelligent Transport Systems—System Architecture—“Use Case” Pro-forma Template. Geneva, Switzerland: Author; 2008a. ISO/TR 25102.
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. Road Vehicles Functional Safety. Geneva, Switzerland: Author; 2008b. ISO 26262.
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. Ergonomics of Human–System Interaction—Part 11: Usability: Definitions and Concepts. Geneva, Switzerland: Author; 2018. ISO 9241-11.
   Google Scholar
• Naujoks F, Hergeth S, Wiedemann K, Schömig N, Keinath A. Use cases for assessing, testing, and validating the human machine interface of automated driving systems. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2018;62:1873–1877.
   Google Scholar
• Naujoks F, Wiedemann K, Schömig N, Hergeth S, Keinath A. Towards guidelines and verification methods for automated vehicle HMIs. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2019;60:121–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NHTSA. Visual–Manual NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines for In-Vehicle Electronic Devices. Washington, DC: Author, Department of Transportation; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• NHTSA. Federal Automated Vehicles Policy 2.0. Washington, DC: Author, Department of Transportation; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen J. Usability inspection methods. In: Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery; 1994:413–414.
   Google Scholar
• RESPONSE Consortium. Code of Practice for the Design and Evaluation of ADAS. 2006. RESPONSE 3: A PReVENT Project.
   Google Scholar
• Society of Automotive Engineers. Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to On-Road Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems. Warrendale, PA: SAE International; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Mehler B, Reimer R, Lammers V, D’Ambrosio L, Coughlin J. The validity of driving simulation for assessing differences between in-vehicle informational interfaces: a comparison with field testing. Ergonomics. 2010;53:404–420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar