Driver behavior following an automatic steering intervention

Fricke, Nicola; Griesche, Stefan; Schieben, Anna; Hesse, Tobias; Baumann, Martin

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2015.07.018

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This could be relevant for the development of steering and evasion assistants, which focus on events in which the driver has only limited time to react and in which a collision can no longer be avoided by braking alone. Several studies indicate that collisions often cannot be avoided by steering/evasion assistants due to counter-steering reactions of the driver (Bräuchle, Flehming, Rosenstiel, & Kropf, 2013; Fricke, Griesche, Schieben, Hesse, & Baumann, 2015; Hesse et al, 2013; Schieben, Griesche, Hesse, Fricke, & Baumann, 2014). However, these studies provide no further explanation of why drivers exhibit counter-steering reactions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interaction of oculomotor and manual behavior: evidence from simulated driving in an approach–avoidance steering task

Schneider

Huestegge

2019

Cogn. Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background While the coordination of oculomotor and manual behavior is essential for driving a car, surprisingly little is known about this interaction, especially in situations requiring a quick steering reaction. In the present study, we analyzed oculomotor gaze and manual steering behavior in approach and avoidance tasks. Three task blocks were implemented within a dynamic simulated driving environment requiring the driver either to steer away from/toward a visual stimulus or to switch between both tasks. Results Task blocks requiring task switches were associated with higher manual response times and increased error rates. Manual response times did not significantly differ depending on whether drivers had to steer away from vs toward a stimulus, whereas oculomotor response times and gaze pattern variability were increased when drivers had to steer away from a stimulus compared to steering toward a stimulus. Conclusion The increased manual response times and error rates in mixed tasks indicate performance costs associated with cognitive flexibility, while the increased oculomotor response times and gaze pattern variability indicate a parsimonious cross-modal action control strategy (avoiding stimulus fixation prior to steering away from it) for the avoidance scenario. Several discrepancies between these results and typical eye–hand interaction patterns in basic laboratory research suggest that the specific goals and complex perceptual affordances associated with driving a vehicle strongly shape cross-modal control of behavior.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interaction of oculomotor and manual behavior: evidence from simulated driving in an approach–avoidance steering task

Schneider

Huestegge

2019

Cogn. Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Especially in emergency interventions, where the drivers are decoupled for a short interval but are still provided torque feedback corresponding to automation action, drivers can be misled into believing that they have some control over the vehicle. This tends to reduce driver's awareness of the driving mode (manual or automated driving) and results in "mode confusion" which can be detrimental to the driving performance [9], [21], [38]. In the debriefing questionnaire, five out of 18 participants in the decoupled scheme reported that they had some control over the vehicle during obstacle evasion when in fact they had no control.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If steering control is shared, the inadequate steering command by the human driver may reduce the efficiency of steering maneuvers undertaken by the automation [6]. Consequently, the driver may be considered a disturbance to automation during emergency scenarios and control sharing can be considered detrimental to driving safety [7]- [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Choosing the mechanical impedance of automation to be larger than the impedance of a typical driver will attenuate driver disturbance while still providing the driver some control over the vehicle. However, high impedance automation may cause driver discomfort, and even a reduction in driving performance, because a large driver torque might be required to overpower the automation system [9]. For example, in [30], Mars et al showed that high impedance automation systems result in reduced lane-keeping performance and reduced driver acceptance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing Coupled and Decoupled Steering Interface Designs for Emergency Obstacle Evasion

Bhardwaj

Pan

et al. 2021

IEEE Access

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Automatic evasive steering maneuvers can outperform human-initiated steering maneuvers in emergency situations. A steering interface that decouples the steering wheel from the tires may enhance the efficiency of automatic steering maneuvers by providing full authority to the automation system. Yet, an alternative interface in which the steering wheel remains coupled to the tires has the advantages of enabling the driver to intervene in the event of an automation failure and preventing the human factors issues associated with decoupling the driver. In this paper, we present a driving simulator study with 64 participants where we compared four steering interface design schemes in their ability to enable successful obstacle evasion in emergency scenarios. The steering wheel was either decoupled from the tires and the automation was given full authority, or the steering wheel was coupled to the tires and the automation was provided high, low or no authority. The automation was designed to avoid all obstacles, except for the last one when it failed unexpectedly. Results uncovered a design tradeoff: as the authority of an agent (driver or automation) increases, the protection against the agent's faults (provided by the other agent) reduces. The results also show that decoupled driving reduced driver's vigilance and mode awareness and deprived the drivers of the authority required to intervene during automation faults. Coupled driving alleviated these issues but caused driver discomfort when designed with high automation authority and resulted in a larger number of collisions during perfect automation operation when designed with low automation authority.

show abstract

“…From the viewpoint of safety, if measures based on HMI alone are insufficient, then methods using tactile sense such as directional and vibrotactile RtI (Fricke et al , 2015; Petermeijer et al , 2016; Petermeijer et al , 2017) or haptic shared control (Abbink et al , 2012) are also conceivable. These approaches can convey information to the driver through tactile.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of automated driving on driver’s own localization: a driving simulator study

Umeno

Itoh

Kitazaki

2018

JICV

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -Level 3 automated driving, which has been defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers, may cause driver drowsiness or lack of situation awareness, which can make it difficult for the driver to recognize where he/she is. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to conduct an experimental study with a driving simulator to investigate whether automated driving affects the driver's own localization compared to manual driving. Design/methodology/approach -Seventeen drivers were divided into the automated operation group and manual operation group. Drivers in each group were instructed to travel along the expressway and proceed to the specified destinations. The automated operation group was forced to select a course after receiving a Request to Intervene (RtI) from an automated driving system. Findings -A driver who used the automated operation system tended to not take over the driving operation correctly when a lane change is immediately required after the RtI. Originality/value -This is a fundamental research that examined how the automated driving operation affects the driver's own localization. The experimental results suggest that it is not enough to simply issue an RtI, and it is necessary to tell the driver what kind of circumstances he/she is in and what they should do next through the HMI. This conclusion can be taken into consideration for engineers who design automatic driving vehicles.

show abstract

Driver behavior following an automatic steering intervention

Cited by 14 publications

References 4 publications

Interaction of oculomotor and manual behavior: evidence from simulated driving in an approach–avoidance steering task

Interaction of oculomotor and manual behavior: evidence from simulated driving in an approach–avoidance steering task

Comparing Coupled and Decoupled Steering Interface Designs for Emergency Obstacle Evasion

Influence of automated driving on driver’s own localization: a driving simulator study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About