谁在执行干预后的驾驶任务?调查驾驶员对自动驾驶汽车模式转换逻辑的理解

IF 3.1 2区 工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL
Soyeon Kim , Fjollë Novakazi , Elmer van Grondelle , René van Egmond , Riender Happee
{"title":"谁在执行干预后的驾驶任务?调查驾驶员对自动驾驶汽车模式转换逻辑的理解","authors":"Soyeon Kim ,&nbsp;Fjollë Novakazi ,&nbsp;Elmer van Grondelle ,&nbsp;René van Egmond ,&nbsp;Riender Happee","doi":"10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Mode awareness is important for the safe use of automated vehicles, yet drivers' understanding of mode transitions has not been sufficiently investigated. In this study, we administered an online survey to 838 respondents to examine their understanding of control responsibilities in partial and conditional driving automation with four types of interventions (brake pedal, steering wheel, gas pedal, and take-over request). Results show that most drivers understand that they are responsible for speed and distance control after brake pedal interventions and steering control after steering wheel interventions. However, drivers have mixed responses regarding the responsibility for speed and distance control after steering wheel interventions and the responsibility for steering control after gas pedal interventions. With a higher automation level (conditional driving automation), drivers expect automation to remain responsible more often compared to a lower automation level (partial driving automation). Regarding Hands-on requirements, more than 99% of respondents answered that drivers would keep their hands on the steering wheel after all intervention types in partial automation, while 60–95% would place their hands on the wheel after various intervention types in conditional automation. A misalignment between actual logic and drivers' expectations regarding control responsibilities is observed by comparing survey responses to the mode transition logic of commercial partially automated vehicles. To resolve confusion about control responsibilities and ensure consistent expectations, we propose implementing a consistent mode design and providing enhanced information to drivers.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55502,"journal":{"name":"Applied Ergonomics","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 104369"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687024001467/pdfft?md5=97f5fd28cf01d022769fc590275ac2ed&pid=1-s2.0-S0003687024001467-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who is performing the driving tasks after interventions? Investigating drivers' understanding of mode transition logic in automated vehicles\",\"authors\":\"Soyeon Kim ,&nbsp;Fjollë Novakazi ,&nbsp;Elmer van Grondelle ,&nbsp;René van Egmond ,&nbsp;Riender Happee\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.apergo.2024.104369\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Mode awareness is important for the safe use of automated vehicles, yet drivers' understanding of mode transitions has not been sufficiently investigated. In this study, we administered an online survey to 838 respondents to examine their understanding of control responsibilities in partial and conditional driving automation with four types of interventions (brake pedal, steering wheel, gas pedal, and take-over request). Results show that most drivers understand that they are responsible for speed and distance control after brake pedal interventions and steering control after steering wheel interventions. However, drivers have mixed responses regarding the responsibility for speed and distance control after steering wheel interventions and the responsibility for steering control after gas pedal interventions. With a higher automation level (conditional driving automation), drivers expect automation to remain responsible more often compared to a lower automation level (partial driving automation). Regarding Hands-on requirements, more than 99% of respondents answered that drivers would keep their hands on the steering wheel after all intervention types in partial automation, while 60–95% would place their hands on the wheel after various intervention types in conditional automation. A misalignment between actual logic and drivers' expectations regarding control responsibilities is observed by comparing survey responses to the mode transition logic of commercial partially automated vehicles. To resolve confusion about control responsibilities and ensure consistent expectations, we propose implementing a consistent mode design and providing enhanced information to drivers.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55502,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Ergonomics\",\"volume\":\"121 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104369\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687024001467/pdfft?md5=97f5fd28cf01d022769fc590275ac2ed&pid=1-s2.0-S0003687024001467-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Ergonomics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687024001467\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Ergonomics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687024001467","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

模式意识对于自动驾驶汽车的安全使用非常重要,但驾驶员对模式转换的理解尚未得到充分研究。在这项研究中,我们对 838 名受访者进行了在线调查,考察他们对部分和有条件自动驾驶中四种干预(制动踏板、方向盘、油门踏板和接管请求)的控制责任的理解。结果显示,大多数驾驶员都明白,在制动踏板干预后,他们负责速度和距离控制,而在方向盘干预后,他们负责转向控制。然而,对于方向盘干预后的速度和距离控制责任以及油门踏板干预后的转向控制责任,驾驶员的反应不一。与较低的自动化水平(部分自动化驾驶)相比,在较高的自动化水平(有条件自动化驾驶)下,驾驶员会更多地期望自动驾驶系统继续负责。关于 "手握方向盘 "的要求,99% 以上的受访者回答说,在部分自动化驾驶中,所有干预类型之后,驾驶员都会将手握在方向盘上;而在有条件自动化驾驶中,60%-95% 的受访者回答说,各种干预类型之后,驾驶员都会将手握在方向盘上。通过将调查回答与商用部分自动驾驶汽车的模式转换逻辑进行比较,可以发现实际逻辑与驾驶员对控制责任的预期存在偏差。为解决控制责任方面的困惑并确保预期一致,我们建议实施一致的模式设计,并为驾驶员提供更多信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Who is performing the driving tasks after interventions? Investigating drivers' understanding of mode transition logic in automated vehicles

Mode awareness is important for the safe use of automated vehicles, yet drivers' understanding of mode transitions has not been sufficiently investigated. In this study, we administered an online survey to 838 respondents to examine their understanding of control responsibilities in partial and conditional driving automation with four types of interventions (brake pedal, steering wheel, gas pedal, and take-over request). Results show that most drivers understand that they are responsible for speed and distance control after brake pedal interventions and steering control after steering wheel interventions. However, drivers have mixed responses regarding the responsibility for speed and distance control after steering wheel interventions and the responsibility for steering control after gas pedal interventions. With a higher automation level (conditional driving automation), drivers expect automation to remain responsible more often compared to a lower automation level (partial driving automation). Regarding Hands-on requirements, more than 99% of respondents answered that drivers would keep their hands on the steering wheel after all intervention types in partial automation, while 60–95% would place their hands on the wheel after various intervention types in conditional automation. A misalignment between actual logic and drivers' expectations regarding control responsibilities is observed by comparing survey responses to the mode transition logic of commercial partially automated vehicles. To resolve confusion about control responsibilities and ensure consistent expectations, we propose implementing a consistent mode design and providing enhanced information to drivers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Ergonomics
Applied Ergonomics 工程技术-工程:工业
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
9.40%
发文量
248
审稿时长
53 days
期刊介绍: Applied Ergonomics is aimed at ergonomists and all those interested in applying ergonomics/human factors in the design, planning and management of technical and social systems at work or leisure. Readership is truly international with subscribers in over 50 countries. Professionals for whom Applied Ergonomics is of interest include: ergonomists, designers, industrial engineers, health and safety specialists, systems engineers, design engineers, organizational psychologists, occupational health specialists and human-computer interaction specialists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信