An Exploratory Study of Driver Response to Reduced System Confidence Notifications in Automated Driving

Beyond mere take-over requests: The effects of monitoring requests on driver attention, take-over performance, and acceptance

“…Compared to without such an uncertainty symbol, the participants intervened with a longer time to collision (TTC) in case of automation failure. Other examples are a LED bar on the instrument cluster indicating the momentary abilities of the automation (Helldin, Falkman, Riveiro, & Davidsson, 2013;Large et al, 2017), an ambient LED strip changing its colour or blinking patterns based on hazard uncertainty information Yang et al, 2017), a continuous verbal notification informing the driver about the state of the ego car and the behaviour of other road users (Cohen-Lazry, Borowsky, & Oron-Gilad, 2017), and a lane-line tracking confidence notification (Tijerina et al, 2017). The results of these studies showed that participants who were provided with the uncertainty indication were better prepared in critical situations (Dziennus et al, 2016;Helldin et al, 2013;Yang et al, 2017).…”

“…Two-step TORs differ from MRs because with a two-step TOR, the driver always has to take over after receiving the notification, whereas this is not necessarily the case with the MR concept. Tijerina et al (2017) showed that a 'cry wolf' effect occurs if the uncertainty notification was issued frequently without an actual need for a response. Similarly, a study evaluating the effects of advisory warning systems in automated driving showed that false alarms caused a cry-wolf effect (Naujoks, Kiesel, and Neukum (2016).…”

“…An additional aim of this study was to examine whether people over-rely on the TOR, despite the fact that they have received an MR prompting them to monitor the driving environment. Previous research suggests that notifications with a low probability of requiring an actual intervention may cause under-reliance (Tijerina et al, 2017), a phenomenon also known as the cry-wolf effect (Bliss, 1993;Breznitz, 1983;Dixon, Wickens, & McCarley, 2007;Wickens, Dixon, Goh, & Hammer, 2005;Zabyshny & Ragland, 2003). The opposite effect was observed in the final trial of our experiment: When drivers who were previously exposed to perfectly reliable TORs were provided with only an MR, they showed worse take-over performance as compared to the MR+TOR condition.…”

An Overview of Vehicular Communications

“…One of the significant areas of interest in today's vehicular industry is the development of technological solutions aimed at improving road safety. To this end, several solutions have been installed in the cars currently available on the market, such as anti-collision sensors [22], intelligent navigation systems [23], driver notification systems [24], assisted parking systems [25], and autonomous driving [26]. However, each company uses proprietary technologies that are unable to interact and cooperate with the equipment installed in vehicles fabricated by other manufacturers.…”

Taking back the wheel: transition of control from automated cars and trucks to manual driving

“…Compared to without such an uncertainty symbol, the participants intervened with a longer time to collision (TTC) in case of automation failure. Other examples are a LED bar on the instrument cluster indicating the momentary abilities of the automation (Helldin, Falkman, Riveiro, & Davidsson, 2013;Large et al, 2017), an ambient LED strip changing colour or blinking pattern based on hazard uncertainty information Yang et al, 2017), a continuous verbal notification informing the driver about the state of the ego car and the behaviour of other road users (Cohen-Lazry, Borowsky, & Oron-Gilad, 2017), and a lane-line tracking confidence notification (Tijerina, Blommer, Curry, Swaminathan, Kochhar, & Talamonti, 2017). The results of these studies showed that participants who were provided with the uncertainty indication were better prepared in critical situations (Dziennus et al, 2016;Helldin et al, 2013;Yang et al, 2017).…”