References
- Carsten O, Lai F, Barnard Y, Jamson AH, Merat N. 2012. Control task substitution in semiautomated driving: does it matter what aspects are automated? Hum Factors. 54(5):747–761. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812460246
- Dogan E, Honnêt V, Masfrand S, Guillaume A. 2019. Effects of non-driving-related tasks on takeover performance in different takeover situations in conditionally automated driving. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 62:494–504. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.02.010
- Dogan E, Rahal MC, Deborne R, Delhomme P, Kemeny A, Perrin J. 2017. Transition of control in a partially automated vehicle: effects of anticipation and non- driving-related task involvement. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 46:205–215. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.01.012
- Engström J, Johansson E, Östlund J. 2005. Effects of visual and cognitive load in real and simulated motorway driving. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 8(2):97–120. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2005.04.012
- Eriksson A, Stanton NA. 2017. Takeover time in highly automated vehicles: noncritical transitions to and from manual control. Hum Factors. 59(4):689–705. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816685832
- Gold C, Berisha I, Bengler K. 2015. Utilization of drivetime-performing non-driving related tasks while driving highly automated. Paper presented at: the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 59th Annual Meeting; October 26–30, Los Angeles, CA.
- Gold C, Damböck D, Lorenz L, Bengler K. 2013. Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop?. Paper presented at: the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 57th Annual Meeting; September 30–October 4, San Diego, CA.
- ISO/TS 14198. 2012. Road vehicles – ergonomic aspects of transport information and control systems – calibration tasks for methods which assess driver demand due to the use of in-vehicle systems.
- Jamson AH, Merat N. 2005. Surrogate in-vehicle information systems and driver behaviour: effects of visual and cognitive load in simulated rural driving. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 8(2):79–96. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2005.04.002
- Kaye SA, Demmel S, Oviedo-Trespalacios O, Griffin W, Lewis I. 2021. Young drivers’ takeover time in a conditional automated vehicle: the effects of hand-held mobile phone use and future intentions to use automated vehicles. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 78:16–29. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.01.012
- Ko SM, Ji YG. 2018. How we can measure the non-driving-task engagement in automated driving: comparing flow experience and workload. Appl Ergon. 67:237–245. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.10.009
- Körber M, Gold C, Lechner D, Bengler K. 2016. The influence of age on the takeover of vehicle control in highly automated driving. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 39:19–32. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.03.002
- Li S, Blythe P, Guo W, Namdeo A. 2019. Investigation of older drivers’ requirements of the human-machine interaction in highly automated vehicles. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 62:546–563. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.02.009
- Lin Q, Li S, Ma X, Lu G. 2020. Understanding take-over performance of high crash risk drivers during conditionally automated driving. Accid Anal Prev. 143:105543. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105543
- McDonald DA, Alambeigi H, Engström J, Markkula G, Vogelpohl T, Dunne J, Yuma N. 2019. Toward computational simulations of behavior during automated driving takeovers: a review of the empirical and modeling literatures. Hum Factors. 61(4):642–688. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819829572
- Vogelpohl T, Kühn M, Hummel T, Gehlert T, Vollrath M. 2018. Transitioning to manual driving requires additional time after automation deactivation. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 55:464–482. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.03.019
- Wan J, Wu C. 2018. The effects of lead time of takeover request and non-driving tasks on taking-over control of automated vehicles. IEEE Trans Human-Mach Syst. 48(6):582–591. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2018.2844251
- Wandtner B, Schömig N, Schmidt G. 2018. Effects of non-driving related task modalities on takeover performance in highly automated driving. Hum Factors. 60(6):870–881. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818768199
- Yoon SH, Kim YW, Ji YG. 2019. The effects of takeover request modalities on highly automated car control transitions. Accid Anal Prev. 123:150–158. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.11.018
- Zeeb K, Buchner A, Schrauf M. 2015. What determines the take-over time? An integrated model approach of driver take-over after automated driving. Accid Anal Prev. 78:212–221. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.02.023
- Zeeb K, Buchner A, Schrauf M. 2016. Is take-over time all that matters? The impact of visual-cognitive load on driver take-over quality after conditionally automated driving. Accid Anal Prev. 92:230–239. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.04.002
- Zhang B, de Winter J, Varotto S, Happee R, Martens M. 2019. Determinants of take-over time from automated driving: a meta-analysis of 129 studies. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 64:285–307. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.04.020