Modeling driver behavior in critical traffic scenarios for the safety assessment of automated driving

References

• Adrian W. 1989. Visibility of targets: model for calculation. Light Res Technol. 21(4):181–188. doi:10.1177/096032718902100404.
   Google Scholar
• Bonnefon JF, Cerny D, Danaher J, Deviller N, Johansson V, et al. 2020. Ethics of Connected and Automated Vehicles: recommendations on road safety, privacy, fairness, explainability and responsibility. Horizon 2020 Commission Expert Group to advise on specific ethical issues raised by driverless mobility (E03659).
   Google Scholar
• Breuer J, von Hugo C, Mücke S, Tattersall S. 2015. Nutzerorientierte bewertungsverfahren von fahrerassistenzsystemen. In: Winner H, Hakuli S, Lotz F, Singer C, editors. Handbuch fahrerassistenzsysteme. Wiesbaden: Springer. p. 183–196. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-05734-3_12
   Google Scholar
• Di Fabio U, Broy M, Brüngger R, Eichhorn U, Grunwald A, et al. 2017. Ethic commission: automated and connected driving. Report of Ethics Commission Appointed by the German Federal Minister of Transport and Digital Infrastructure.
   Google Scholar
• Ferry ES. 1892. Persistence of vision. Am J Sci. s3–44(261):192–207. doi:10.2475/ajs.s3-44.261.192.
   Google Scholar
• Fries A, Fahrenkrog F, Donauer K, Mai M, Raisch F. 2022. Driver behavior model for the safety assessment of automated driving. IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Aachen, Germany. p. 1669–1674. doi:10.1109/IV51971.2022.9827404.
   Google Scholar
• Gipps PG. 1981. A behavioural car-following model for computer simulation. Transp Res Part B Methodol. 15(2):105–111. 10.1016/0191-2615(81)90037-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gold C, Damböck D, Lorenz L, Bengler K. 2013. “Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop? Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Vol. 57(1). p. 1938–1942. doi:10.1177/1541931213571433.
   Google Scholar
• ISO Technical Report. 2021. Road vehicles—Prospective safety performance assessment of pre-crash technology by virtual simulation—Part 1: state-of-the-art and general method overview. ISO/TR 21934-1 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Kaber DB, Liang Y, Zhang Y, Rogers ML, Gangakhedkar S. 2012. Driver performance effects of simultaneous visual and cognitive distraction and adaptation behavior. Transp Res F Traffic Psychol Behav. 15(5):491–501. 10.1016/j.trf.2012.05.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kauffmann N, Fahrenkrog F, Drees L, Raisch F. 2022. Positive risk balance: a comprehensive framework to ensure vehicle safety. Ethics Inf Technol. 24(1). 10.1007/s10676-022-09625-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lachenmayr BJ. 1995. Sehen und gesehen werden: Sicher unterwegs im Straßenverkehr. Aachen: Shaker.
   Google Scholar
• Lee DN. 1976. A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time to collision. Perception. 5(4):437–459. 10.1068/p050437
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mai M. 2017. Fahrerverhaltensmodellierung für die prospektive, stochastische Wirksamkeitsbewertung von Fahrerassistenzsystemen der Aktiven Fahrzeugsicherheit [Ph.D. thesis]. Dresden: Technische Universität Dresden.
   Google Scholar
• Metz B, Schömig N, Krüger H-P. 2011. Attention during visual secondary tasks in driving: adaptation to the demands of the driving task. Transp Res F Traffic Psychol Behav. 14(5):369–380. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2011.04.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabatilan LB, Aghazadeh F, Nimbarte A, Harvey CC, Chowdhury SK. 2012. Effect of driving experience on visual behavior and driving performance under different driving conditions. Cogn Tech Work. 14(4):355–363. doi:10.1007/s10111-011-0184-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pannasch S. 2003. Ereignisbezogene veränderungen der visuellen fixationsdauer [Ph.D. thesis]. Dresden: Technische Universität Dresden.
   Google Scholar
• Porter TC. 1898. Contributions to the study of flicker. Proc R Soc Lond. 63:347–356. doi:10.1098/rspl.1898.0041.
   Google Scholar
• Ringhand M. 2013. Der einfluss von kollisionswarnungen auf die reaktion in gefahrensituationen – überprüfung im fahrversuch [Diploma thesis]. Dresden: Technische Universität Dresden.
   Google Scholar
• Rovamo J, Virsu V. 1979. An estimation and application of the human cortical magnification factor. Exp Brain Res. 37(3):495–510. doi:10.1007/BF00236819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvucci DD. 2006. Modeling driver behavior in a cognitive architecture. Hum Factors. 48(2):362–380. 10.1518/001872006777724417
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvucci DD, Gray R. 2004. A two-point visual control model of steering. Perception. 33(10):1233–1248. 10.1068/p5343
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schweigert M. 2003. Fahrerblickverhalten und nebenaufgaben [Ph.D. thesis]. Munich: Technical University of Munich.
   Google Scholar
• Sivak M. 1996. The information that drivers use: is it indeed 90% visual? Perception. 25(9):1081–1089. doi:10.1068/p251081.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stapel J, El Hassnaoui M, Happee R. 2022. Measuring driver perception: combining eye-tracking and automated road scene perception. Hum Factors. 64(4):714–731. doi:10.1177/0018720820959958.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treiber M, Hennecke A, Helbing D. 2000. Congested traffic states in empirical observations and microscopic simulations. Phys Rev E Stat Phys Plasmas Fluids Relat Interdiscip Topics. 62(2):1805–1824. 10.1103/PhysRevE.62.1805.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Elslande P, Naing C, Engel R. 2008. Analyzing human factors in road accidents. Summary Report. TRACE Report WP5. Deliverable 5.5.
   Google Scholar
• Victor T, Dozza M, Bärgman J, Boda C-N, Engström J, Flannagan C, Lee JD, Markkula G. 2015. Analysis of naturalistic driving study data: safer glances, driver inattention, and crash risk. Wahsington (DC): Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Wiedemann R. 1974. Simulation des straßenverkehrsflusses. Karlsruhe: Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Verkehrswesen, Heft 8, Habilitation.
   Google Scholar
• Witt M, Ring P, Wang L, Kompaß K, Prokop G. 2018. Modelling stochastic gaze distribution for multi-agent traffic simulation – impact of driver characteristics and situational traffic circumstances on the driver’s gaze behaviour. Kognitive Systeme. 2018. doi:10.17185/duepublico/48594.
   Google Scholar
• Witt M, Wang L, Fahrenkrog F, Kompaß K, Prokop G. 2018. Cognitive driver behavior modeling: influence of personality and driver characteristics on driver behavior. Adv Hum Aspects Transp. 786:751–763.
   Google Scholar