Conditionally and highly automated vehicle handover: A study exploring vocal communication between two drivers

Abstract

Automated Vehicles with levels 3 and 4 capability involve the handover of control and responsibility between driver and automation. The handover task represents a vulnerability in a given system due to the reduction of situation awareness and possible breakdowns in communication. Handover assistants are a design approach proposed to counteract these vulnerabilities. This study investigated the concept of a vocal handover assistant by exploring information transferred, and the methods for doing so, in naturalistic vocal handover between two drivers. Additionally, it was hypothesised that scripted vocal methods would differ in measures of workload, usability, acceptance and the effect on longitudinal/lateral driving behaviour. In each trial, two drivers took part in a driving simulation exchanging control from one-another. Drivers took part in six conditions: four pre-set conditions related to a different interaction style and two 'free-form' conditions before and after pre-set conditions. Our results show a change in information-types transferred and methods adopted for communication from before to after taking part in pre-set conditions. Other findings highlight considerations to be made such as training, personalization, the transmission of priority as well as contextual information, and how handover methods may affect the control of the vehicle following handover. Grice's Maxims were applied to handover methods to facilitate discussion. We present four considerations for future design: efficiency, personalization, and presentation of prioritised and context-related information.

Driver Distraction Detection Methods: A Literature Review and Framework

“…Automated driving requires the handover between driver and automation system, and this takeover task represents a major vulnerability in the automation system, as situation awareness is reduced and possible breakdowns in communication can arise [26]. It is therefore important to keep drivers 'in the loop', e.g., by providing continuous feedback to them on the system limits and behavior of vehicle automation instead of issuing discrete warnings, to increase the frequency of proactive responses to automation failures and to improve system understanding [27].…”

Automated Vehicle Handover Interface Design: Focus Groups with Learner, Intermediate and Advanced Drivers

“…Inevitably, the collective public attitudes and law will dictate the pace at which these vehicles are developed. Alternatively, conditionally and highly automated vehicles (C/HAVs) [2] could be on our roads sooner (Levels 3 and 4) [1]-that is, automation that either expects or may have the option (respectively) to handover control to the driver when approaching a geographical, terrain, capability or design boundary (level 3) or on request by the driver (level 3 and 4). This may be more feasible for manufacturers, as there is greater ability to apply automation selectively to less complex and more predictable scenarios, such as highway driving [3].…”

“…To build upon and verify the proposed driver-generated designs (or select elements of these designs), simulator or track and road testing should be performed. The authors recommend reading Clark, Stanton and Revell's [2] assessment of vocal handover strategies which measured: Further considerations could also be made such as:…”

A Few Critical Human Factors for Developing Sustainable Autonomous Driving Technology

“…A thorough review of available literature on HFs was performed, and this review was mainly focused on cars [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29], planes [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42], and NPP operators [43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. The process started with drawing out all possible HFs and listing them up to avoid redundancy and duplicity of information.…”