OBJECTIVE: A driving simulator was used to assess the impact on fatigue, stress, and workload of full vehicle automation that was initiated by the driver. BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that mandatory use of full automation induces a state of "passive fatigue" associated with loss of alertness. By contrast, voluntary use of automation may enhance the driver's perceptions of control and ability to manage fatigue. METHOD: Participants were assigned to one of two experimental conditions, automation optional (AO) and nonautomation (NA), and then performed a 35 min, monotonous simulated drive. In the last 5 min, automation was unavailable and drivers were required to respond to an emergency event. Subjective state and workload were evaluated before and after the drive. RESULTS: Making automation available to the driver failed to alleviate fatigue and stress states induced by driving in monotonous conditions. Drivers who were fatigued prior to the drive were more likely to choose to use automation, but automation use increased distress, especially in fatigue-prone drivers. Drivers in the AO condition were slower to initiate steering responses to the emergency event, suggesting optional automation may be distracting. CONCLUSION: Optional, driver-controlled automation appears to pose the same dangers to task engagement and alertness as externally initiated automation. APPLICATION: Drivers of automated vehicles may be vulnerable to fatigue that persists when normal vehicle control is restored. It is important to evaluate automated systems' impact on driver fatigue, to seek design solutions to the issue of maintaining driver engagement, and to address the vulnerabilities of fatigue-prone drivers.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: A driving simulator was used to assess the impact on fatigue, stress, and workload of full vehicle automation that was initiated by the driver. BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that mandatory use of full automation induces a state of "passive fatigue" associated with loss of alertness. By contrast, voluntary use of automation may enhance the driver's perceptions of control and ability to manage fatigue. METHOD:Participants were assigned to one of two experimental conditions, automation optional (AO) and nonautomation (NA), and then performed a 35 min, monotonous simulated drive. In the last 5 min, automation was unavailable and drivers were required to respond to an emergency event. Subjective state and workload were evaluated before and after the drive. RESULTS: Making automation available to the driver failed to alleviate fatigue and stress states induced by driving in monotonous conditions. Drivers who were fatigued prior to the drive were more likely to choose to use automation, but automation use increased distress, especially in fatigue-prone drivers. Drivers in the AO condition were slower to initiate steering responses to the emergency event, suggesting optional automation may be distracting. CONCLUSION: Optional, driver-controlled automation appears to pose the same dangers to task engagement and alertness as externally initiated automation. APPLICATION: Drivers of automated vehicles may be vulnerable to fatigue that persists when normal vehicle control is restored. It is important to evaluate automated systems' impact on driver fatigue, to seek design solutions to the issue of maintaining driver engagement, and to address the vulnerabilities of fatigue-prone drivers.
Authors: Erin E Flynn-Evans; Lily R Wong; Yukiyo Kuriyagawa; Nikhil Gowda; Patrick F Cravalho; Sean Pradhan; Nathan H Feick; Nicholas G Bathurst; Zachary L Glaros; Theerawit Wilaiprasitporn; Kanika Bansal; Javier O Garcia; Cassie J Hilditch Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-09-14 Impact factor: 4.996