research-article

Open access

Exploring Driver Responses to Authoritative Control Interventions in Highly Automated Driving

Authors:

Norbert Schneider,

Nicolas Daniel Herzberger,

Frank O. Flemisch,

Martin BaumannAuthors Info & Claims

AutomotiveUI '23: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications

Pages 145 - 155

https://doi.org/10.1145/3580585.3607159

Published: 18 September 2023 Publication History

All formats PDF

Abstract

Future automated driving systems (ADS) are discussed as having the ability to “override” driver control inputs. Yet, little is known about how drivers respond to this, nor how a human-machine interaction (HMI) for them should be designed. This work identifies intervention types associated with an ADS that has change control authority and outlines an experiment method which simulates a deficit in driver situation awareness, enabling the study of their responses to interventions in a controlled environment. In a simulator study (N = 18), it was found that drivers express more negative valence when their control input is blocked (p = .046) than when it is taken away. In safety-critical scenarios, drivers respond more positively to interventions (p = .021) and are willing to give the automation more control (p = .018). An experimental method and HMI design insights are presented and ethical questions about the development of automated driving are provoked.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (autoui_1079_cms1_supp.mp4)

Supplemental video material depicting the experiment setup, the incentive concept, and authoritative control interventions.

Download
33.48 MB

References

[1]

Isaac Asimov. 1942. “Runaround", Astounding Science Fiction.

[2]

American Psychological Association. 2023. Emotional Valence. Retrieved 2023-06-19 from https://dictionary.apa.org/emotional-valence

[3]

Ella Atkins. 2009. Driver Override for Safety-Critical Vehicles and Networks. SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars-Electronic and Electrical Systems 2, 2009-01-0751 (2009), 271–280.

[4]

Marcel Baltzer, Eugen Altendorf, Sonja Meier, and Frank Flemisch. 2014. Mediating the interaction between human and automation during the arbitration processes in cooperative guidance and control of highly automated vehicles: basic concept and first study. Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation Part I (2014), 439–450. https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe100647

[5]

Marcel Caspar Attila Baltzer, Daniel López, and Frank Flemisch. 2019. Towards an interaction pattern language for human machine cooperation and cooperative movement. Cognition, Technology & Work 21 (2019), 593–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00561-8

Digital Library

[6]

Marcel C. A. Baltzer, Daniel López, Martin Kienle, and Frank Flemisch. 2015. Dynamic distribution of control via grip force sensitive devices in cooperative guidance and control. (2015).

[7]

Mohamed Amir Benloucif, Jean-Christophe Popieul, and Chouki Sentouh. 2016. Architecture for multi-level cooperation and dynamic authority management in an automated driving system-a case study on lane change cooperation. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49, 19 (2016), 615–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.10.631

[8]

Bruno Berberian. 2019. Man-Machine teaming: a problem of Agency. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51, 34 (2019), 118–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.01.049

[9]

Göde Both and Jutta Weber. 2013. Hands-free driving? Automatisiertes fahren und mensch-maschine interaktion. In Robotik im Kontext von Recht und Moral. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, 171–189. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845252179

[10]

Thorsten Brandt, Thomas Sattel, and Michael Bohm. 2007. Combining haptic human-machine interaction with predictive path planning for lane-keeping and collision avoidance systems. In 2007 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium. IEEE, 582–587. https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2007.4290178

[11]

Gary E. Burnett and J. Mark Porter. 2001. Ubiquitous computing within cars: designing controls for non-visual use. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 55, 4 (2001), 521–531. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2001.0482

Digital Library

[12]

Linda M. Collins, John J. Dziak, and Runze Li. 2009. Design of experiments with multiple independent variables: a resource management perspective on complete and reduced factorial designs.Psychological methods 14, 3 (2009), 202. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015826

[13]

Toyota Motor Corporation. 2019. Dr. Gill Pratt, CEO, Toyota Research Institute CES 2019 Remarks. Retrieved 2023-03-04 from https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/corporate/26085202.html

[14]

Joost de Winter, Neville Stanton, and Yke Bauke Eisma. 2021. Is the take-over paradigm a mere convenience?Transportation research interdisciplinary perspectives 10 (2021), 100370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2021.100370

[15]

Fredrick Ekman, Mikael Johansson, and Jana Sochor. 2017. Creating appropriate trust in automated vehicle systems: A framework for HMI design. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 48, 1 (2017), 95–101.

[16]

Mica R. Endsley. 1995. Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human factors 37, 1 (1995), 32–64. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543

[17]

Michael Flad, Philipp Karg, Alina Roitberg, Manuel Martin, Marcus Mazewitsch, Carolin Lange, Erdi Kenar, Lenne Ahrens, Boris Flecken, Luis Kalb, 2020. Personalisation and control transition between automation and driver in highly automated cars. Smart Automotive Mobility: Reliable Technology for the Mobile Human (2020), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45131-8_1

[18]

Frank Flemisch, Matthias Heesen, Tobias Hesse, Johann Kelsch, Anna Schieben, and Johannes Beller. 2012. Towards a dynamic balance between humans and automation: authority, ability, responsibility and control in shared and cooperative control situations. Cognition, Technology & Work 14 (2012), 3–18.

Digital Library

[19]

Frank O. Flemisch, Catherine A. Adams, Sheila R. Conway, Ken H. Goodrich, Michael T. Palmer, and Paul C. Schutte. 2003. The H-Metaphor as a Guideline for Vehicle Automation and Interaction., 30 pages. Issue December.

[20]

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 2014. Inland Transport Committee Working Party on Road Traffic Safety Report of the sixty-eighth session of the Working Party on Road Traffic Safety Contents.

[21]

Yannick Forster, Anna-Katharina Frison, Philipp Wintersberger, Viktoria Geisel, Sebastian Hergeth, and Andreas Riener. 2019. Where we come from and where we are going: a review of automated driving studies. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications: Adjunct Proceedings. 140–145. https://doi.org/10.1145/3349263.3351341

Digital Library

[22]

Ellen C. Garbarino and Julie A. Edell. 1997. Cognitive effort, affect, and choice. Journal of consumer research 24, 2 (1997), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1086/209500

[23]

Brittany E. Holthausen, Philipp Wintersberger, Bruce N. Walker, and Andreas Riener. 2020. Situational trust scale for automated driving (STS-AD): Development and initial validation. In 12th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 40–47.

Digital Library

[24]

Alboukadel Kassambara. 2022. ggpubr: ’ggplot2’ Based Publication Ready Plots. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggpubr R package version 0.5.0.

[25]

Moritz Körber. 2019. Theoretical considerations and development of a questionnaire to measure trust in automation. In Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) Volume VI: Transport Ergonomics and Human Factors (TEHF), Aerospace Human Factors and Ergonomics 20. Springer, 13–30.

[26]

Theodore Kunin. 1955. The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Personnel psychology 8, 1 (1955), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1955.tb01189.x

[27]

John D. Lee and Katrina A. See. 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human factors 46, 1 (2004), 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392

[28]

Zhenji Lu and Joost C.F. de Winter. 2015. A review and framework of control authority transitions in automated driving. Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015), 2510–2517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.513

[29]

Zhenji Lu, Riender Happee, Christopher D.D. Cabrall, Miltos Kyriakidis, and Joost C.F. de Winter. 2016. Human factors of transitions in automated driving: A general framework and literature survey. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 43 (2016), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.10.007

[30]

Davide Maggi, Richard Romano, and Oliver Carsten. 2020. Transitions between highly automated and longitudinally assisted driving: The role of the initiator in the fight for authority. Human factors 64, 3 (2020), 601–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820946183

[31]

Davide Maggi, Richard Romano, Oliver Carsten, and Joost C.F. De Winter. 2022. When terminology hinders research: the colloquialisms of transitions of control in automated driving. Cognition, Technology & Work 24, 3 (2022), 509–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-022-00705-3

Digital Library

[32]

Franck Mars, Mathieu Deroo, and Camilo Charron. 2014. Driver adaptation to haptic shared control of the steering wheel. In 2014 ieee international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (smc). IEEE, 1505–1509. https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC.2014.6974129

[33]

Steffen Maurer, Rainer Erbach, Issam Kraiem, Susanne Kuhnert, Petra Grimm, and Enrico Rukzio. 2018. Designing a guardian angel: Giving an automated vehicle the possibility to override its driver. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1145/3239060.3239078

Digital Library

[34]

Steffen Maurer, Enrico Rukzio, and Rainer Erbach. 2017. Challenges for creating driver overriding mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications Adjunct. 99–103.

Digital Library

[35]

James W. Moore. 2016. What is the sense of agency and why does it matter?Frontiers in psychology 7 (2016), 1272. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01272

[36]

Neville Moray, Toshiyuki Inagaki, and Makoto Itoh. 2000. Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks.Journal of experimental psychology: Applied 6, 1 (2000), 44. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.6.1.44

[37]

Mark Mulder, David A. Abbink, and Erwin R. Boer. 2008. The effect of haptic guidance on curve negotiation behavior of young, experienced drivers. In 2008 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics. IEEE, 804–809. https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2007.4290178

[38]

United Nations. 1968. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Chapter XI Transport and Communications B. Road Traffic 19. Convention on Road Traffic. Retrieved 2023-04-15 from https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?chapter=11&mtdsg_no=XI-B-19&src=TREATY

[39]

Frederik Naujoks, Katharina Wiedemann, Nadja Schömig, Sebastian Hergeth, and Andreas Keinath. 2019. Towards guidelines and verification methods for automated vehicle HMIs. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 60 (2019), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.10.012

[40]

Donald A. Norman. 1990. The “problem” with automation: inappropriate feedback and interaction, not “overautomation”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences 327, 1241 (1990), 585–593. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1990.0101

[41]

Society of Automotive Engineers. 2021. Surface Vehicle Information Report, J3063: (R) Active Safety Systems Terms and Definitions.

[42]

Society of Automotive Engineers. 2021. Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice, J3016: (R) Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles.

[43]

Raja Parasuraman and Victor Riley. 1997. Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human factors 39, 2 (1997), 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778543886

[44]

Alice Plebe, Gastone Pietro Rosati Papini, Antonello Cherubini, and Mauro Da Lio. 2022. Distributed cognition for collaboration between human drivers and self-driving cars. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 5 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.910801

[45]

Posit team. 2022. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit Software, PBC, Boston, MA. http://www.posit.co/

[46]

N.B. Sarter, David D. Woods, and C.E. Billings. 1997. Automation surprises. Vol. 2. New York Wiley.

[47]

Keisuke Suzuki and Håkan Jansson. 2003. An analysis of driver’s steering behaviour during auditory or haptic warnings for the designing of lane departure warning system. JSAE review 24, 1 (2003), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0389-4304(02)00247-3

[48]

Marcel Walch, Marcel Woide, Kristin Mühl, Martin Baumann, and Michael Weber. 2019. Cooperative overtaking: Overcoming automated vehicles’ obstructed sensor range via driver help. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1145/3342197.3344531

Digital Library

[49]

Fang You, Xu Yan, Jun Zhang, and Wei Cui. 2022. Design Factors of Shared Situation Awareness Interface in Human–Machine Co-Driving. Information 13, 9 (2022), 437. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13090437

[50]

Mark S. Young, Neville A. Stanton, and Don Harris. 2007. Driving automation: learning from aviation about design philosophies. International Journal of Vehicle Design 45, 3 (2007), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJVD.2007.014908

Cited By

Stampf AColley MKnuth ATasci CRukzio E(2024)Examining Psychological Conflict-Handling Strategies for Highly Automated Vehicles to Resolve Legal User-Vehicle ConflictsProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/36785118:3(1-25)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3678511
Sivakumar LDixon L(2024)Behaviour of Pupil Diameter during Authoritative Control Interventions in Driving AutomationAdjunct Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications10.1145/3641308.3685020(39-44)Online publication date: 22-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3641308.3685020
Stampf AColley MGirst BRukzio E(2024)Exploring Passenger-Automated Vehicle Negotiation Utilizing Large Language Models for Natural InteractionProceedings of the 16th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications10.1145/3640792.3675725(350-362)Online publication date: 22-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3640792.3675725

Index Terms

Exploring Driver Responses to Authoritative Control Interventions in Highly Automated Driving
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)

Recommendations

Exploring Shared Control in Automated Driving
HRI '16: The Eleventh ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction

Automated driving systems that share control with human drivers by using haptic feedback through the steering wheel have been shown to have advantages over fully automated systems and manual driving. Here, we describe an experiment to elicit tacit ...
Highly automated truck driving: how can drivers safely perform sport exercises on the go?
AutomotiveUI '15: Adjunct Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications

Highly automated driving enables the driver to engage in activities other than the actual primary driving task. How can truck drivers use phases of highly automated driving meaningfully? Research in the domain of long-distance road haulage shows that ...
Driver Capability Monitoring in Highly Automated Driving: From State to Capability Monitoring
ITSC '15: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems

A collision probability estimator in the advent of an emergency Take Over Request (TOR) that considers the driver reaction time and the driver state is an essential tool for developing driver assistance systems for Highly Automated Driving (HAD). In ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

AutomotiveUI '23: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications

September 2023

352 pages

ISBN:9798400701054

DOI:10.1145/3580585

Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 18 September 2023

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy

Conference

AutomotiveUI '23

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

AutomotiveUI '23: 15th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications

September 18 - 22, 2023

Ingolstadt, Germany

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 248 of 566 submissions, 44%

Upcoming Conference

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
589
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)589
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)70

Reflects downloads up to 15 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Stampf AColley MKnuth ATasci CRukzio E(2024)Examining Psychological Conflict-Handling Strategies for Highly Automated Vehicles to Resolve Legal User-Vehicle ConflictsProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/36785118:3(1-25)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3678511
Sivakumar LDixon L(2024)Behaviour of Pupil Diameter during Authoritative Control Interventions in Driving AutomationAdjunct Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications10.1145/3641308.3685020(39-44)Online publication date: 22-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3641308.3685020
Stampf AColley MGirst BRukzio E(2024)Exploring Passenger-Automated Vehicle Negotiation Utilizing Large Language Models for Natural InteractionProceedings of the 16th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications10.1145/3640792.3675725(350-362)Online publication date: 22-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3640792.3675725

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents