Perceived safety and trust in SAE Level 2 partially automated cars: Results from an online questionnaire

The present online study surveyed drivers of SAE Level 2 partially automated cars on automation use and attitudes towards automation. Respondents reported high levels of trust in their partially automated cars to maintain speed and distance to the car ahead (M = 4.41), and to feel safe most of the time (M = 4.22) on a scale from 1 to 5. Respondents indicated to always know when the car is in partially automated driving mode (M = 4.42), and to monitor the performance of their car most of the time (M = 4.34). A low rating was obtained for engaging in other activities while driving the partially automated car (M = 2.27). Partial automation did, however, increase reported engagement in secondary tasks that are already performed during manual driving (i.e., the proportion of respondents reporting to observe the landscape, use the phone for texting, navigation, music selection and calls, and eat during partially automated driving was higher in comparison to manual driving). Unsafe behaviour was rare with 1% of respondents indicating to rarely monitor the road, and another 1% to sleep during partially automated driving. Structural equation modeling revealed a strong, positive relationship between perceived safety and trust (β = 0.69, p = 0.001). Performance expectancy had the strongest effects on automation use, followed by driver engagement, trust, and non-driving related task engagement. Perceived safety interacted with automation use through trust. We recommend future research to evaluate the development of perceived safety and trust in time, and revisit the influence of driver engagement and non-driving related task engagement, which emerged as new constructs related to trust in partial automation.

The Role of Partial Automation in Increasing the Accessibility of Digital Games

Digital games are designed to be controlled using hardware devices such as gamepads, keyboards, and cameras. Some device inputs may be inaccessible to players with motor impairments, rendering them unable to play. Games and devices can be adapted to enable play, but for some players these adaptations may not go far enough. Games may require inputs that some players cannot provide with any device. To address this problem, we introduce partial automation, an accessibility technique that delegates control of inaccessible game inputs to an AI partner. Partial automation complements and builds on other approaches to improving games' accessibility, including universal design, player balancing, and interface adaptation. We have demonstrated partial automation in two games for the rehabilitation of spinal cord injury. Six study participants with vastly different motor abilities were able to play both games. Participants liked the increased personalization that partial automation affords, although some participants were confused by aspects of the AI's behaviour.

Visual attention and steering wheel control: From engagement to disengagement of Tesla Autopilot

Previous research indicates that drivers may forgo their supervisory role with partial-automation. We investigated if this behavior change is the result of the time automation was active. Naturalistic data was collected from 16 Tesla owners driving under free-flow highway conditions. We coded glance location and steering-wheel control level around Tesla Autopilot (AP) engagements, driver-initiated AP disengagements, and AP steady-state use in-between engagement and disengagement. Results indicated that immediately after AP engagement, glances downwards and to the center-stack increased above 18% and there was a 32% increase in the proportion of hands-free driving. The decrease in driver engagement in driving was not gradual over-time but occurred immediately after engaging AP. These behaviors were maintained throughout the drive with AP until drivers approached AP disengagement. In conclusion, drivers may not be using AP as recommended (intentionally or not), reinforcing the call for improved ways to ensure drivers’ supervisory role when using partial-automation.

No Difference in Arousal or Cognitive Demands Between Manual and Partially Automated Driving: A Multi-Method On-Road Study

IntroductionPartial driving automation is not always reliable and requires that drivers maintain readiness to take over control and manually operate the vehicle. Little is known about differences in drivers’ arousal and cognitive demands under partial automation and how it may make it difficult for drivers to transition from automated to manual modes. This research examined whether there are differences in drivers’ arousal and cognitive demands during manual versus partial automation driving.MethodWe compared arousal (using heart rate) and cognitive demands (using the root mean square of successive differences in normal heartbeats; RMSSD, and Detection Response Task; DRT) while 39 younger (M = 28.82 years) and 32 late-middle-aged (M = 52.72 years) participants drove four partially automated vehicles (Cadillac, Nissan Rogue, Tesla, and Volvo) on interstate highways. If compared to manual driving, drivers’ arousal and cognitive demands were different under partial automation, then corresponding differences in heart rate, RMSSD, and DRT would be expected. Alternatively, if drivers’ arousal and cognitive demands were similar in manual and partially automated driving, no difference in the two driving modes would be expected.ResultsResults suggest no significant differences in heart rate, RMSSD, or DRT reaction time performance between manual and partially automated modes of driving for either younger or late-middle-aged adults across the four test vehicles. A Bayes Factor analysis suggested that heart rate, RMSSD, and DRT data showed extreme evidence in favor of the null hypothesis.ConclusionThis novel study conducted on real roads with a representative sample provides important evidence of no difference in arousal and cognitive demands. Younger and late-middle-aged motorists who are new to partial automation are able to maintain arousal and cognitive demands comparable to manual driving while using the partially automated technology. Drivers who are more experienced with partially automated technology may respond differently than those with limited prior experience.

Rival records management models in an era of partial automation

Two rival records management models emerged during the 1990s. Duranti’s model involved moving records out of business applications into a repository which has a structure/schema optimised for recordkeeping. Bearman’s model involved intervening in business applications to ensure that their functionality and structure/schema are optimised for record keeping. In 2013 the US National Archives and Records Administration began asking Federal agencies to schedule important email accounts for permanent preservation. This approach cannot be mapped to either Duranti or Bearman’s model. A third records management model has therefore emerged, a model in which records are managed in place within business applications even where those applications have a sub-optimal structure/schema. This model can also be seen in the records retention features of the Microsoft 365 cloud suite. This paper asks whether there are any circumstances in which the in-place model could be preferable to Duranti and Bearman’s models. It explores the question by examining the evolution of archival theory on the organisation of records. The main perspectives deployed are those of realism and of records continuum theory. The paper characterises the first two decades of this century as an era of partial automation, during which organisations have had a general capability to automate the assignment of business correspondence to a sub-optimal structure/schema (that of their email system and/or other messaging system) but not to an optimal structure/schema. In such an era any insistence on optimising the structure/schema within which correspondence is managed may paradoxically result in a reduction in recordkeeping efficiency and reliability.

An Empirical Investigation of Relevant Changes and Automation Needs in Modern Code Review

Recent research has shown that available tools for Modern Code Review (MCR) are still far from meeting the current expectations of developers. The objective of this paper is to investigate the approaches and tools that, from a developer’s point of view, are still needed to facilitate MCR activities. To that end, we first empirically elicited a taxonomy of recurrent review change types that characterize MCR. The taxonomy was designed by performing three steps: (i) we generated an initial version of the taxonomy by qualitatively and quantitatively analyzing 211 review changes/commits and 648 review comments of ten open-source projects; then (ii) we integrated into this initial taxonomy, topics, and MCR change types of an existing taxonomy available from the literature; finally, (iii) we surveyed 52 developers to integrate eventually missing change types in the taxonomy. Results of our study highlight that the availability of new emerging development technologies (e.g., Cloud-based technologies) and practices (e.g., Continuous delivery) has pushed developers to perform additional activities during MCR and that additional types of feedback are expected by reviewers. Our participants provided recommendations, specified techniques to employ, and highlighted the data to analyze for building recommender systems able to automate the code review activities composing our taxonomy. We surveyed 14 additional participants (12 developers and 2 researchers), not involved in the previous survey, to qualitatively assess the relevance and completeness of the identified MCR change types as well as assess how critical and feasible to implement are some of the identified techniques to support MCR activities. Thus, with a study involving 21 additional developers, we qualitatively assess the feasibility and usefulness of leveraging natural language feedback (automation considered critical/feasible to implement) in supporting developers during MCR activities. In summary, this study sheds some more light on the approaches and tools that are still needed to facilitate MCR activities, confirming the feasibility and usefulness of using summarization techniques during MCR activities. We believe that the results of our work represent an essential step for meeting the expectations of developers and supporting the vision of full or partial automation in MCR.