Sijun Shen1, David M Neyens2. 1. Department of Industrial Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29630, USA. 2. Department of Industrial Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29630, USA. Electronic address: dneyens@clemson.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: With the increase in automated driver support systems, drivers are shifting from operating their vehicles to supervising their automation. As a result, it is important to understand how drivers interact with these automated systems and evaluate their effect on driver responses to safety critical events. This study aimed to identify how drivers responded when experiencing a safety critical event in automated vehicles while also engaged in non-driving tasks. METHOD: In total 48 participants were included in this driving simulator study with two levels of automated driving: (a) driving with no automation and (b) driving with adaptive cruise control (ACC) and lane keeping (LK) systems engaged; and also two levels of a non-driving task (a) watching a movie or (b) no non-driving task. In addition to driving performance measures, non-driving task performance and the mean glance duration for the non-driving task were compared between the two levels of automated driving. RESULTS: Drivers using the automated systems responded worse than those manually driving in terms of reaction time, lane departure duration, and maximum steering wheel angle to an induced lane departure event. These results also found that non-driving tasks further impaired driver responses to a safety critical event in the automated system condition. CONCLUSION: In the automated driving condition, driver responses to the safety critical events were slower, especially when engaged in a non-driving task. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: Traditional driver performance variables may not necessarily effectively and accurately evaluate driver responses to events when supervising autonomous vehicle systems. Thus, it is important to develop and use appropriate variables to quantify drivers' performance under these conditions.
INTRODUCTION: With the increase in automated driver support systems, drivers are shifting from operating their vehicles to supervising their automation. As a result, it is important to understand how drivers interact with these automated systems and evaluate their effect on driver responses to safety critical events. This study aimed to identify how drivers responded when experiencing a safety critical event in automated vehicles while also engaged in non-driving tasks. METHOD: In total 48 participants were included in this driving simulator study with two levels of automated driving: (a) driving with no automation and (b) driving with adaptive cruise control (ACC) and lane keeping (LK) systems engaged; and also two levels of a non-driving task (a) watching a movie or (b) no non-driving task. In addition to driving performance measures, non-driving task performance and the mean glance duration for the non-driving task were compared between the two levels of automated driving. RESULTS: Drivers using the automated systems responded worse than those manually driving in terms of reaction time, lane departure duration, and maximum steering wheel angle to an induced lane departure event. These results also found that non-driving tasks further impaired driver responses to a safety critical event in the automated system condition. CONCLUSION: In the automated driving condition, driver responses to the safety critical events were slower, especially when engaged in a non-driving task. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: Traditional driver performance variables may not necessarily effectively and accurately evaluate driver responses to events when supervising autonomous vehicle systems. Thus, it is important to develop and use appropriate variables to quantify drivers' performance under these conditions.
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
Authors: Li Li; Ruth A Shults; Rebecca R Andridge; Merissa A Yellman; Henry Xiang; Motao Zhu Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Callum Mole; Jami Pekkanen; William Sheppard; Tyron Louw; Richard Romano; Natasha Merat; Gustav Markkula; Richard Wilkie Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 3.240