RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Investigating take-over, driving, non-driving related task (NDRT) performance, and trust of conditionally automated vehicles (AVs) in critical transitions on a test track. BACKGROUND: Most experimental results addressing driver take-over were obtained in simulators. The presented experiment aimed at validating relevant findings while uncovering potential effects of motion cues and real risk. METHOD: Twenty-two participants responded to four critical transitions on a test track. Non-driving related task modality (reading on a handheld device vs. auditory) and take-over timing (cognitive load) were varied on two levels. We evaluated take-over and NDRT performance as well as gaze behavior. Further, trust and workload were assessed with scales and interviews. RESULTS: Reaction times were significantly faster than in simulator studies. Further, reaction times were only barely affected by varying visual, physical, or cognitive load. Post-take-over control was significantly degraded with the handheld device. Experiencing the system reduced participants' distrust, and distrusting participants monitored the system longer and more frequently. NDRTs on a handheld device resulted in more safety-critical situations. CONCLUSION: The results confirm that take-over performance is mainly influenced by visual-cognitive load, while physical load did not significantly affect responses. Future take-over request (TOR) studies may investigate situation awareness and post-take-over control rather than reaction times only. Trust and distrust can be considered as different dimensions in AV research. APPLICATION: Conditionally AVs should offer dedicated interfaces for NDRTs to provide an alternative to using nomadic devices. These interfaces should be designed in a way to maintain drivers' situation awareness. PRÉCIS: This paper presents a test track experiment addressing conditionally automated driving systems. Twenty-two participants responded to critical TORs, where we varied NDRT modality and take-over timing. In addition, we assessed trust and workload with standardized scales and interviews.
Asunto(s)
Conducción de Automóvil , Humanos , Conducción de Automóvil/psicología , Tiempo de Reacción/fisiología , Automatización , Concienciación , Señales (Psicología) , Accidentes de TránsitoRESUMEN
Road traffic accidents (RTAs) are an ever-existing threat to all road users. Automated vehicles (AVs; SAE Level 3-5) are developed in many countries. They are promoted with numerous benefits such as increased safety yielding less RTAs, less congestion, less greenhouse gas emissions, and the possibility of enabling non-driving related tasks (NDRTs). However, there has been no study which has investigated different NDRT conditions, while comparing participants who experienced a severe RTA in the past with those who experienced no RTA. Therefore, we conducted a driving simulator study (N = 53) and compared two NDRT conditions (i.e., auditory-speech (ASD) vs. heads-up display (HUD)) and an accident (26 participants) with a non-accident group (27; between-subjects design). Although our results did not reveal any interaction effect, and no group difference between the accident and the non-accident group on NDRT, take-over request (TOR), and driving performance, we uncovered for both groups better performances for the HUD condition, whereas a lower cognitive workload was reported for the ASD condition. Nevertheless, there was no difference for technology trust between the two conditions. Albeit we observed higher self-ratings of PTSD symptoms for the accident than for the non-accident group, there were no group differences on depression and psychological resilience self-ratings. We conclude that severe RTA experiences do not undermine NDRT, TOR, and driving performance in a SAE Level 3 driving simulator study, although PTSD symptoms after an RTA may affect the psychological wellbeing.