Objective: We investigated drivers’ behavior and subjective experience when repeatedly taking over their vehicles’ control depending on the design of the takeover request (TOR) and the modality of the nondriving-related task (NDRT). Background: Previous research has shown that taking over vehicle control after highly automated driving provides several problems for drivers. There is evidence that the TOR design and the NDRT modality may influence takeover behavior and that driver behavior changes with more experience. Method: Forty participants were requested to resume control of their simulated vehicle six times. The TOR design (auditory or visual-auditory) and the NDRT modality (auditory or visual) were varied. Drivers’ takeover behavior, gaze patterns, and subjective workload were recorded and analyzed. Results: Results suggest that drivers change their behavior to the repeated experience of takeover situations. An auditory TOR leads to safer takeover behavior than a visual-auditory TOR. And with an auditory TOR, the takeover behavior improves with experience. Engaging in the visually demanding NDRT leads to fewer gazes on the road than the auditory NDRT. Participants’ fixation duration on the road decreased over the three takeovers with the visually demanding NDRT. Conclusions: The results imply that (a) drivers change their behavior to repeated takeovers, (b) auditory TOR designs might be preferable over visual-auditory TOR designs, and (c) auditory demanding NDRTs allow drivers to focus more on the driving scene. Application: The results of the present study can be used to design TORs and determine allowed NDRTs in highly automated driving.

No abstract

No abstract

Driving behavior after take-over requests (TORs) is one of the most popular subjects in human factors re-search on highly automated driving. Many studies utilized one-step TOR procedures to prompt drivers to resume vehicle control. The present paper examines driver behavior when experiencing a two-step TOR procedure in different modalities. A two-step TOR gives drivers a choice to resume vehicle controls be-tween a warning (first step) and an alarm (second step). Our findings indicate that a substantial number of drivers resumes vehicle controls after the second step, resulting in a higher number of crashes. More generally, criticality of the driving situation increases with increasing reaction times. Driving and interview data suggest that step two of the TOR should be presented earlier. Alternatively, a multi-step TOR could be used to increase drivers’ situational awareness. Auditory TORs are associated with shorter reaction times than visual-auditory TORs. Implications on TOR design are discussed.

No abstract