Comments on "Driver Behavior in an Emergency Situation in the Automated Highway System"

Farber, Eugene

doi:10.1207/sthf0101_8

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There has been considerable debate about whether driving simulators can provide valid outcomes regarding research into human factors of automated driving (e.g., Farber, 1999;Neale and Dingus, 1998;Neubauer et al, 2010), and the present study sheds further light on this topic. Our results showed that the experimental effects were relatively similar between the two experiments.…”

Section: Limitations Of This Researchmentioning

confidence: 76%

The effects of driving with different levels of unreliable automation on self-reported workload and secondary task performance

Winter

Stanton

Price

et al. 2016

IJVD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Until automated cars function perfectly, drivers will have to take over control when automation fails or reaches its functional limits. Two simulator experiments (N = 24 and 27) were conducted, each testing four automation levels ranging from manual control (MC) to highly automated driving. In both experiments, participants about once every 3 min experienced an event that required intervention. Participants performed a secondary divided attention task while driving. Automation generally resulted in improved secondary task performance and reduced self-reported physical demand and effort as compared to MC. However, automated speed control was experienced as more frustrating than MC. Participants responded quickly to the events when the stimulus was salient (i.e., stop sign, crossing pedestrian, and braking lead car), but often failed to react to an automation failure when their vehicle was driving slowly. In conclusion, driving with imperfect automation can be frustrating, even though mental and physical demands are reduced.

show abstract

Section: Limitations Of This Researchmentioning

confidence: 76%

The effects of driving with different levels of unreliable automation on self-reported workload and secondary task performance

Winter

Stanton

Price

et al. 2016

IJVD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participants are usually not accustomed to driving in simulators, and workload scores are likely to drop after an acclimatization period of some days or weeks. Farber (1999) argued that a single drive in a highly automated car will not yield results that are representative of real driving. Neale and Dingus (1998) and Farber (1999) stated that simulators do not provide an accurate representation of the phenomenology of real automated driving.…”

Section: Limitations and Moderator Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Farber (1999) argued that a single drive in a highly automated car will not yield results that are representative of real driving. Neale and Dingus (1998) and Farber (1999) stated that simulators do not provide an accurate representation of the phenomenology of real automated driving. Table 1 indicated that two-thirds of the experiments have been conducted in fixed-base (i.e., low or medium fidelity) driving simulators, which may be problematic in terms of validity.…”

Section: Limitations and Moderator Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of adaptive cruise control and highly automated driving on workload and situation awareness: A review of the empirical evidence

Winter

Happee

Martens

et al. 2014

Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviou

595

286

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adaptive cruise control (ACC), a driver assistance system that controls longitudinal motion, has been introduced in consumer cars in 1995. A next milestone is highly automated driving (HAD), a system that automates both longitudinal and lateral motion. We investigated the effects of ACC and HAD on drivers' workload and situation awareness through a meta-analysis and narrative review of simulator and on-road studies. Based on a total of 32 studies, the unweighted mean self-reported workload was 43.5% for manual driving, 38.6% for ACC driving, and 22.7% for HAD (0% = minimum, 100 = maximum on the NASA Task Load Index or Rating Scale Mental Effort). Based on 12 studies, the number of tasks completed on an in-vehicle display relative to manual driving (100%) was 112% for ACC and 261% for HAD. Drivers of a highly automated car, and to a lesser extent ACC drivers, are likely to pick up tasks that are unrelated to driving. Both ACC and HAD can result in improved situation awareness compared to manual driving if drivers are motivated or instructed to detect objects in the environment. However, if drivers are engaged in non-driving tasks, situation awareness deteriorates for ACC and HAD compared to manual driving. The results of this review are consistent with the hypothesis that, from a Human Factors perspective, HAD is markedly different from ACC driving, because the driver of a highly automated car has the possibility, for better or worse, to divert attention to secondary tasks, whereas an ACC driver still has to attend to the roadway.

show abstract

“…However, driving simulators vary considerably in sophistication (and cost), while the validity and reliability of driving behaviour data gathered from simulators are common concerns to the research community (Farber, 1999, De Waard, Van der Hulst, Hoedemaeker & Brookhuis, 1999. A widely accepted way to classify simulators is as low, medium and high cost systems (Weir & Clark, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The interaction between driving and in-vehicle information systems: Comparison of results from laboratory, simulator and real-world studies

Santos

Merat

Mouta

et al. 2005

Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviou

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article:Santos, J., Merat, N., Mouta, S. et AbstractThe main objective of this study was to compare a standardised visual performance test in three driving research environments: laboratory, simulator and instrumented vehicle. The effects of a standardised secondary visual search task on the primary task, i.e. aspects of driving performance, were evaluated and compared between the three facilities. Results showed that for gross effects on performance indicators, aspects of lateral position control in the laboratory test gave a sufficient first indication of sizeable influence as soon as visual attention was diverted towards the secondary task. More subtle differences between levels of visual search difficulty were only found in the simulator and in the field. One main purpose of the EU project HASTE, which was the context of the present study, is to produce guidelines for and assess the suitability of each of the test environments for testing the effects of In-Vehicle-Information-Systems on driving performance.

show abstract

Comments on "Driver Behavior in an Emergency Situation in the Automated Highway System"

Cited by 13 publications

References 1 publication

The effects of driving with different levels of unreliable automation on self-reported workload and secondary task performance

The effects of driving with different levels of unreliable automation on self-reported workload and secondary task performance

Effects of adaptive cruise control and highly automated driving on workload and situation awareness: A review of the empirical evidence

The interaction between driving and in-vehicle information systems: Comparison of results from laboratory, simulator and real-world studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About