Anticipatory Driving in Automated Vehicles: The Effects of Driving Experience and Distraction.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the influence of driving experience and distraction on drivers' anticipation of upcoming traffic events in automated vehicles. BACKGROUND: In nonautomated vehicles, experienced drivers spend more time looking at cues that indicate upcoming traffic events compared with novices, and distracted drivers spend less time looking at these cues compared with nondistracted drivers. Further, pre-event actions (i.e., proactive control actions prior to traffic events) are more prevalent among experienced drivers and nondistracted drivers. However, there is a research gap on the combined effects of experience and distraction on driver anticipation in automated vehicles. METHODS: A simulator experiment was conducted with 16 experienced and 16 novice drivers in a vehicle equipped with adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping assist systems (resulting in SAE Level 2 driving automation). Half of the participants in each experience group were provided with a self-paced primarily visual-manual secondary task. RESULTS: Drivers with the task spent less time looking at cues and were less likely to perform anticipatory driving behaviors (i.e., pre-event actions or preparation for pre-event actions such as hovering fingers over the automation disengage button). Experienced drivers exhibited more anticipatory driving behaviors, but their attention toward the cues was similar to novices for both task conditions. CONCLUSION: In line with nonautomated vehicle research, in automated vehicles, secondary task engagement impedes anticipation while driving experience facilitates anticipation. APPLICATION: Though Level 2 automation can relieve drivers of manually controlling the vehicle and allow engagement in distractions, visual-manual distraction engagement can impede anticipatory driving and should be restricted.

Factors Influencing Trust in Advanced Driver Assistance Systems for Current Users.

Understanding the factors influencing trust in advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) may help inform training and education to support appropriate use. We surveyed 369 drivers with experience using both adaptive cruise control (ACC) and lane keeping assist (LKA). The survey included questions to assess trust in ADAS, along with objective knowledge about ADAS limitations, self-reported understanding of ADAS, familiarity with technology, propensity to trust technology, and demographics. Regression results showed that self-reported understanding, but not objective knowledge, predicted trust in ADAS. Self-reported understanding was not correlated with objective knowledge; overall, participants were not aware of many of the system limitations included in the survey. Propensity to trust technology was also a significant predictor of trust. Training/educational materials could be designed to inform drivers of potential gaps in their understanding and adjust expectations of ADAS to support appropriate trust for those with a high propensity to trust technology.

Drivers don't need to learn all ADAS limitations: A comparison of limitation-focused and responsibility-focused training approaches.

Expecting drivers to learn and remember numerous limitations may not be a practical approach to training for advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), particularly for self-initiated training in the absence of formal training requirements. One alternative is focusing on the importance of the driver remaining engaged in the driving task (responsibility-focused approach). We investigated the effects of two training videos (responsibility-focused and limitation-focused) on reliance intention, trust, and ADAS knowledge. In a remote study, participants (N = 61) watched dashcam clips (8 that require takeover, 8 no takeover) and for each clip, they reported whether they would manually intervene and their trust in ADAS (assessing situational reliance intention and trust, respectively). Participants also completed a questionnaire that included items measuring ADAS knowledge. Responses were collected at three stages: pre-training, post-training, and a follow-up session (minimum four weeks later). There were no significant differences between approaches in terms of knowledge of situations in which ADAS would not work, appropriate situational reliance intention, or trust in takeover scenarios. Compared to the responsibility-focused video, the limitation-focused video was associated with lower trust in no takeover scenarios and negative bias at post-training (i.e., bias towards reporting that ADAS would not work for the knowledge questionnaire and bias towards taking manual control/not using ADAS for the dashcam clips). Given the limited differences between training approaches and potential drawbacks of the limitation-focused approach, our results suggest that the responsibility-focused training approach is worth exploring further.

Knowledge of and trust in advanced driver assistance systems.

Understanding what drivers know about state-of-the-art advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), like adaptive cruise control (ACC) and lane keeping assistance (LKA) is important because such knowledge can influence trust in and reliance on the automation. We surveyed ADAS owners (N = 102) and non-owners (N = 262), with the primary objective of assessing knowledge and trust of ACC and LKA, and investigating the relationship between knowledge and trust among drivers who have not received special training. The survey contained demographic questions, ACC and LKA knowledge questionnaires (assessing knowledge of capabilities and limitations commonly found in owner's manuals), and ACC and LKA trust ratings. From the knowledge questionnaires, sensitivity (i.e., knowledge of the true capabilities of ACC and LKA) and response bias were assessed and used to predict trust. Results showed that owners did not have better knowledge of system capabilities/limitations than non-owners, in fact, owners had a stronger bias in favour of system capabilities. For non-owners, better knowledge of system capabilities was associated with lower trust, and those who were more biased towards endorsing system capabilities had higher trust. Neither knowledge nor response bias was associated with trust among owners. Further research is needed to confirm our results with a larger sample of owners, but given that it is also impractical to expect drivers to learn and remember all possible ADAS limitations, it may be beneficial to focus training efforts on improving drivers' overall understanding of the fallibility of ADAS and reinforcing their role when using ADAS to support appropriate trust and reliance.

Using a serious game to measure executive functioning: Response inhibition ability.

In previous research, we developed a serious target acquisition game (with moles as targets) for assessing cognitive speed. Tong, Chignell, Tierney, and Lee demonstrated that performance on the game may be a useful screening tool for risk of delirium onset. In this study, we validate a version of the game where there are not only targets (moles) that should be hit but also distractors (butterflies, or moles with hats) that should not be hit. We hypothesized that performance on the game should be a measure of response inhibition ability, which has been implicated as a factor in many types of psychopathology. We carried out an experiment (with 30 healthy participants) to test whether the serious game does in fact measure response inhibition by comparing game performance with a standard response inhibition task (the Go/No-Go discrimination task). Our results show that, with the distractors, the game does in fact assess response inhibition ability. We discuss the implications of this work for assessing executive functions in the elderly, and for evaluating recovery in neuro-rehabilitation, and declining ability to perform activities of daily living.