Am I Driving or Are You or Are We Both? A Taxonomy for Handover and Handback in Automated Driving

Abstract

Summary:In this paper, a taxonomy of handover and handback (i.e., from manual to automatic control and vice versa) is proposed to be used by practitioners and researchers to help assure the duration of those periods are clearly defined, and accordingly, studies examining them are comparable and have repeatable results. Furthermore, use of this framework will help assure that those implementing automation will do so in a comprehensive manner. The taxonomy is more detailed than that in SAE Standard J3114.Handover includes the phases preparation, perception (of the handover signal), suspension (of in-vehicle tasks) and the actual process of taking over, which can be subdivided into sufficient (to steer and control speed) and full (where situation awareness is complete) control. Furthermore, handover can be imminent, scheduled, or user-initiated. For handback, the phases are initialization, the actual handback, and re-engagement (of the driver). Handback may be optional or mandatory and user-or system initiated. For both handover and handback processes, the duration and change of the control transfer (as a function of time) needs to be precisely described/specified.

Long automated driving phase affects take‐over performance

“…Statistics are reported in Table 2. Reaction time: ‘time required to perform a physical act (braking, steering or pressing a button) in response to some external event’ [41]…”

Where We Come from and Where We Are Going: A Systematic Review of Human Factors Research in Driving Automation

“…The heterogeneity of constructs, use cases, and AD operationalization has recently led to first efforts in methodological standardization. For example, various taxonomies [58][59][60] have been proposed to describe TOR scenarios and related use cases [61]. In addition, regarding TOR, many research groups follow their own measurement procedures and evaluation methods, which highlights the need for commonly accepted standards.…”

“…To better compare results between different laboratories, there is an urgent need to come up with a standardization of procedures when evaluating human-automation interaction. Efforts in this directions are reported in the works by Wintersberger et al [59], which suggests TOR performance measures based on SAE J2944 or in Naujoks et al [60] outlining a standardized set of use cases for control transitions between levels of automation. Since there has been a lot of research on TOR controllability, it is now time to combine this body of knowledge and standardize methodology along the lines of driver distraction research [143,144] ⇒ REC 5: Consider existing or proposed standards for measurements to allow comparison of study results.…”

“…Another reason might be that the scenario where automation fails and humans need to step into action was an important issue to determine feasibility of driving automation in the first place. We argue that more emphasis should be paid to other types of interaction such as ongoing automation, user-initiated or planned transfers of control, as most likely, these use cases will occur more frequently than automation failures [59,147]. From that, the need to investigate efficient and effective interaction arises [29].…”

Communications and Driver Monitoring Aids for Fostering SAE Level-4 Road Vehicles Automation

“…Attention is drawn to the fact that the driver is often expected to maintain situational awareness and is hence legally responsible, whereas the handover situation may make this difficult or impossible and the driver may not respond appropriately. In this field, academic examinations of transitions are becoming more frequent (e.g., [41,42]) [43] focus on driver skills and have developed an approach for safe transitions based on characterizing a driver's skills).…”