Control Task Substitution in Semiautomated Driving: Does It Matter What Aspects Are Automated?

被引:232
作者
Carsten, Oliver [1 ]
Lai, Frank C. H. [1 ]
Barnard, Yvonne [1 ]
Jamson, A. Hamish [1 ]
Merat, Natasha [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Leeds, Inst Transport Studies, Leeds LS2 9JT, W Yorkshire, England
基金
英国工程与自然科学研究理事会;
关键词
automation; driver behavior; dual task performance; vigilance; eye movement; task analysis; PERFORMANCE; SYSTEMS; TRUST; MODEL;
D O I
10.1177/0018720812460246
中图分类号
B84 [心理学]; C [社会科学总论]; Q98 [人类学];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 030303 ; 04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Objective: The study was designed to show how driver attention to the road scene and engagement of a choice of secondary tasks are affected by the level of automation provided to assist or take over the basic task of vehicle control. It was also designed to investigate the difference between support in longitudinal control and support in lateral control. Background: There is comparatively little literature on the implications of automation for drivers' engagement in the driving task and for their willingness to engage in non-driving-related activities. Method: A study was carried out on a high-level driving simulator in which drivers experienced three levels of automation: manual driving, semiautomated driving with either longitudinal or lateral control provided, and highly automated driving with both longitudinal and lateral control provided. Drivers were free to pay attention to the roadway and traffic or to engage in a range of entertainment and grooming tasks. Results: Engagement in the nondriving tasks increased from manual to semiautomated driving and increased further with highly automated driving. There were substantial differences in attention to the road and traffic between the two types of semiautomated driving. Conclusion: The literature on automation and the various task analyses of driving do not currently help to explain the effects that were found. Lateral support and longitudinal support may be the same in terms of levels of automation but appear to be regarded rather differently by drivers.
引用
收藏
页码:747 / 761
页数:15
相关论文
共 28 条
[11]  
James McKnight A., 1970, Driver education task analysis. volume i: Task descriptions. final report
[12]  
Kaber D. B., 2004, Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci., V5, P113, DOI DOI 10.1080/1463922021000054335
[13]  
Lai F., 2003, 10 INT C VIS VEH GRA
[14]   Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance [J].
Lee, JD ;
See, KA .
HUMAN FACTORS, 2004, 46 (01) :50-80
[15]  
McKnight A. J., 1970, DOTHS800367 HUM RES
[16]  
Michon JA., 1985, HUMAN BEHAV TRAFFIC, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-1-4613-2173-6_19
[17]   TRUST IN AUTOMATION .1. THEORETICAL ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF TRUST AND HUMAN INTERVENTION IN AUTOMATED SYSTEMS [J].
MUIR, BM .
ERGONOMICS, 1994, 37 (11) :1905-1922
[18]   A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation [J].
Parasuraman, R ;
Sheridan, TB ;
Wickens, CD .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS MAN AND CYBERNETICS PART A-SYSTEMS AND HUMANS, 2000, 30 (03) :286-297
[19]   Designing automation for human use: empirical studies and quantitative models [J].
Parasuraman, R .
ERGONOMICS, 2000, 43 (07) :931-951
[20]  
Sharp RS, 2000, VEHICLE SYST DYN, V33, P289, DOI 10.1076/0042-3114(200005)33:5