scholarly journals Augmented Reality Windshield Displays and Their Potential to Enhance User Experience in Automated Driving

i-com ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Riegler ◽  
Philipp Wintersberger ◽  
Andreas Riener ◽  
Clemens Holzmann

Abstract Increasing vehicle automation presents challenges as drivers of highly automated vehicles become more disengaged from the primary driving task. However, even with fully automated driving, there will still be activities that require interfaces for vehicle-passenger interactions. Windshield displays are a technology with a promising potential for automated driving, as they are able to provide large content areas supporting drivers in non-driving related activities. However, it is still unknown how potential drivers or passengers would use these displays. This work addresses user preferences for windshield displays in automated driving. Participants of a user study (N=63) were presented two levels of automation (conditional and full), and could freely choose preferred positions, content types, as well as size, transparency levels and importance levels of content windows using a simulated “ideal” windshield display. We visualized the results in form of heatmap data which show that user preferences differ with respect to the level of automation, age, gender, or environment aspects. These insights can help designers of interiors and in-vehicle applications to provide a rich user experience in highly automated vehicles.

2015 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Becker ◽  
Sören Kammel ◽  
Oliver Pink ◽  
Michael Fausten

AbstractAdvanced driver assistance systems already help drivers reach their destinations safely and more comfortably. Future systems will evolve from driver assistance over highly automated vehicles to fully automated driving. With an increasing level of automation, automated functions will reduce the driver's burden more and more, thereby creating space for productivity, communication or entertainment while driving. In this article we outline our roadmap for future automated vehicles, assess the key challenges for introduction and give an overview of the major algorithmic components.


Author(s):  
Niklas Grabbe ◽  
Michael Höcher ◽  
Alexander Thanos ◽  
Klaus Bengler

Automated driving offers great possibilities in traffic safety advancement. However, evidence of safety cannot be provided by current validation methods. One promising solution to overcome the approval trap (Winner, 2015) could be the scenario-based approach. Unfortunately, this approach still results in a huge number of test cases. One possible way out is to show the current, incorrect path in the argumentation and strategy of vehicle automation, and focus on the systemic mechanisms of road traffic safety. This paper therefore argues the case for defining relevant scenarios and analysing them systemically in order to ultimately reduce the test cases. The relevant scenarios are based on the strengths and weaknesses, in terms of the driving task, for both the human driver and automation. Finally, scenarios as criteria for exclusion are being proposed in order to systemically assess the contribution of the human driver and automation to road safety.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 845-852
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Rodak ◽  
Paweł Budziszewski ◽  
Małgorzata Pędzierska ◽  
Mikołaj Kruszewski

Abstract In L3–L4 vehicles, driving task is performed primarily by automated driving system (ADS). Automation mode permits to engage in non-driving-related tasks; however, it necessitates continuous vigilance and attention. Although the driver may be distracted, a request to intervene may suddenly occur, requiring immediate and appropriate response to driving conditions. To increase safety, automated vehicles should be equipped with a Driver Intervention Performance Assessment module (DIPA), ensuring that the driver is able to take the control of the vehicle and maintain it safely. Otherwise, ADS should regain control from the driver and perform a minimal risk manoeuvre. The paper explains the essence of DIPA, indicates possible measures, and describes a concept of DIPA framework being developed in the project.


Author(s):  
Wyatt McManus ◽  
Jing Chen

Modern surface transportation vehicles often include different levels of automation. Higher automation levels have the potential to impact surface transportation in unforeseen ways. For example, connected vehicles with higher levels of automation are at a higher risk for hacking attempts, because automated driving assistance systems often rely on onboard sensors and internet connectivity (Amoozadeh et al., 2015). As the automation level of vehicle control rises, it is necessary to examine the effect different levels of automation have on the driver-vehicle interactions. While research into the effect of automation level on driver-vehicle interactions is growing, research into how automation level affects driver’s responses to vehicle hacking attempts is very limited. In addition, auditory warnings have been shown to effectively attract a driver’s attention while performing a driving task, which is often visually demanding (Baldwin, 2011; Petermeijer, Doubek, & de Winter, 2017). An auditory warning can be either speech-based containing sematic information (e.g., “car in blind spot”) or non-sematic (e.g., a tone, or an earcon), which can influence driver behaviors differently (Sabic, Mishler, Chen, & Hu, 2017). The purpose of the current study was to examine the effect of level of automation and warning type on driver responses to novel critical events, using vehicle hacking attempts as a concrete example, in a driving simulator. The current study compared how level of automation (manual vs. automated) and warning type (non-semantic vs. semantic) affected drivers’ responses to a vehicle hacking attempt using time to collision (TTC) values, maximum steering wheel angle, number of successful responses, and other measures of response. A full factorial between-subjects design with the two factors made four conditions (Manual Semantic, Manual Non-Semantic, Automated Semantic, and Automated Non-Semantic). Seventy-two participants recruited using SONA ( odupsychology.sona-systems.com ) completed two simulated drives to school in a driving simulator. The first drive ended with the participant safely arriving at school. A two-second warning was presented to the participants three quarters of the way through the second drive and was immediately followed by a simulated vehicle hacking attempt. The warning either stated “Danger, hacking attempt incoming” in the semantic conditions or was a 500 Hz sine tone in the non-semantic conditions. The hacking attempt lasted five seconds before simulating a crash into a vehicle and ending the simulation if no intervention by the driver occurred. Our results revealed no significant effect of level of automation or warning type on TTC or successful response rate. However, there was a significant effect of level of automation on maximum steering wheel angle. This is a measure of response quality (Shen & Neyens, 2017), such that manual drivers had safer responses to the hacking attempt with smaller maximum steering wheel angles. In addition, an effect of warning type that approached significance was also found for maximum steering wheel angle such that participants who received a semantic warning had more severe and dangerous responses to the hacking attempt. The TTC and successful response results from the current experiment do not match those in the previous literature. The null results were potentially due to the warning implementation time and the complexity of the vehicle hacking attempt. In contrast, the maximum steering wheel angle results indicated that level of automation and warning type affected the safety and severity of the participants’ responses to the vehicle hacking attempt. This suggests that both factors may influence responses to hacking attempts in some capacity. Further research will be required to determine if level of automation and warning type affect participants ability to safely respond to vehicle hacking attempts. Acknowledgments. We are grateful to Scott Mishler for his assistance with STISIM programming and Faye Wakefield, Hannah Smith, and Pettie Perkins for their assistance in data collection.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vishnu Radhakrishnan ◽  
Natasha Merat ◽  
Tyron Louw ◽  
Rafael Goncalves ◽  
Wei Lyu ◽  
...  

This driving simulator study, conducted as a part of Horizon2020-funded L3Pilot project, investigated how different car-following situations affected driver workload, within the context of vehicle automation. Electrocardiogram (ECG) and electrodermal activity (EDA)-based physiological metrics were used as objective indicators of workload, along with self-reported workload ratings. A total of 32 drivers were divided into two equal groups, based on whether they engaged in a non-driving related task (NDRT) during automation or monitored the drive. Drivers in both groups were exposed to two counterbalanced experimental drives, lasting ~18 minutes each, of Short (0.5 s) and Long (1.5 s) Time Headway conditions during automated car-following (ACF), which was followed by a takeover that happened with or without a lead vehicle. We observed that the workload on the driver due to the NDRT was significantly higher than both monitoring the drive during ACF and manual car-following (MCF). Furthermore, the results indicated that shorter THWs and the presence of a lead vehicle can significantly increase driver workload during takeover scenarios, potentially affecting the safety of the vehicle. This warrants further research into understanding safe time headway thresholds to be maintained by automated vehicles, without placing additional mental or attentional demands on the driver. To conclude, our results indicated that ECG and EDA signals are sensitive to variations in workload, and hence, warrants further investigation on the value of combining these two signals to assess driver workload in real-time, to help the system respond appropriately to the limitations of the driver and predict their performance in driving task if and when they have to resume manual control of the vehicle.


Author(s):  
Nicole M. Corcoran ◽  
Daniel V. McGehee ◽  
T. Zachary Noonan

In 2019, industry is in the testing stages of level 4 SAE/NHTSA automated vehicles. While in testing, L4 vehicles require a safety driver to monitor the driving task at all times. These specially trained drivers must take back control if the vehicle doesn’t seem to be responding correctly to the ever-changing roadway and environment. Research suggests that monitoring the driving task can lead to a decrease in vigilance over time. Recently, Waymo publicly released takeover request and mileage data on its 2018 L4 autonomous vehicle takeover requests. From this data, which was represented in mileage, we created temporal metric which showed that there were typically 150-250 hours without a takeover request. From this we suggest that there may be a decrement in vigilance for Waymo safety drivers. While there are still many unknowns, we suggest Waymo release takeover requests in terms of time rather than mileage and provide more information on the operational design domains of these vehicles. Expanding the content of this publicly-released data could then give researchers and the public more understanding of the conditions under which safety drivers are functioning.


Author(s):  
Noah J. Goodall

Most automobile manufacturers and several technology companies are testing automated vehicles (AVs) on public roads. While automation of the driving task is expected to reduce crashes, there is no consensus as to how safe an AV must be before it can be deployed. An AV should be at least as safe as the average driver, but national crash rates include drunk and distracted driving, meaning that an AV that crashes at the average rate is somewhere between drunk and sober. In this paper, safety benchmarks for AVs are explored from three perspectives. First, crash rates from naturalistic driving studies are used to determine the crash risk of the model (i.e., sober, rested, attentive, cautious) driver. Second, stated preference surveys in the literature are reviewed to estimate the AV risk acceptable to the public. Third, crash, injury, and fatality rates from other transportation modes are compared as baseline safety levels. A range of potential safety targets is presented as a guide for policymakers, regulators, and AV developers to assist in evaluating the safety of automated driving technologies for public use.


2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. C. Calvert ◽  
W. J. Schakel ◽  
J. W. C. van Lint

With low-level vehicle automation already available, there is a necessity to estimate its effects on traffic flow, especially if these could be negative. A long gradual transition will occur from manual driving to automated driving, in which many yet unknown traffic flow dynamics will be present. These effects have the potential to increasingly aid or cripple current road networks. In this contribution, we investigate these effects using an empirically calibrated and validated simulation experiment, backed up with findings from literature. We found that low-level automated vehicles in mixed traffic will initially have a small negative effect on traffic flow and road capacities. The experiment further showed that any improvement in traffic flow will only be seen at penetration rates above 70%. Also, the capacity drop appeared to be slightly higher with the presence of low-level automated vehicles. The experiment further investigated the effect of bottleneck severity and truck shares on traffic flow. Improvements to current traffic models are recommended and should include a greater detail and understanding of driver-vehicle interaction, both in conventional and in mixed traffic flow. Further research into behavioural shifts in driving is also recommended due to limited data and knowledge of these dynamics.


Author(s):  
Dengbo He ◽  
Dina Kanaan ◽  
Birsen Donmez

Driver distraction is one of the leading causes of vehicle crashes. The introduction of higher levels of vehicle control automation is expected to alleviate the negative effects of distraction by delegating the driving task to automation, thus enabling drivers to engage in non-driving-related tasks more safely. However, before fully automated vehicles are realized, drivers are still expected to play a supervisory role and intervene with the driving task if necessary while potentially having more spare capacity for engaging in non-driving-related tasks. Traditional distraction mitigation perspectives need to be shifted for automated vehicles from mainly preventing the occurrence of non-driving-related tasks to dynamically coordinating time-sharing between driving and non-driving-related tasks. In this paper, we provide a revised and expanded taxonomy of driver distraction mitigation strategies, discuss how the different strategies can be used in an automated driving context, and propose directions for future research in supporting time-sharing in automated vehicles.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Esko Lehtonen ◽  
Johanna Wörle ◽  
Fanny Malin ◽  
Barbara Metz ◽  
Satu Innamaa

AbstractAutomated vehicles (AVs) are expected to change personal mobility in the near future. Most studies on the mobility impacts of AVs focus on fully automated (SAE L5) vehicles, but the gradual development of the technology will probably bring AVs with more limited capabilities to begin with. This stated-preference study focused on the potential mobility impacts of conditionally automated (L3) and highly automated cars (L4). We investigated personal mobility impacts among 59 participants who experienced automated driving repeatedly in a driving simulator. Half of them drove with an L3 and half with an L4 motorway function. After the first and final drive they answered questions on their travel experience and how automated vehicles could change their mobility. After the drives, participants in both groups were willing to accept 30–50% longer travel times for a 30 min trip if they did not need to drive the whole trip themselves. This translates into savings of around 30% for the perceived value of travel time on routes where automation is available. There were no statistically significant differences between L3 and L4 in the accepted travel times. Most participants did not expect to make more trips with automated cars, but around half of them anticipated making longer trips. The amount of car travel may increase more with L4 than with L3 automation, possibly due somewhat to changes in the experienced travel quality. The results suggest that the mobility impacts of automated driving may increase with a higher level of automation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document