Measuring Driver Perception: Combining Eye-Tracking and Automated Road Scene Perception.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how well gaze behavior can indicate driver awareness of individual road users when related to the vehicle's road scene perception. BACKGROUND: An appropriate method is required to identify how driver gaze reveals awareness of other road users. METHOD: We developed a recognition-based method for labeling of driver situation awareness (SA) in a vehicle with road-scene perception and eye tracking. Thirteen drivers performed 91 left turns on complex urban intersections and identified images of encountered road users among distractor images. RESULTS: Drivers fixated within 2° for 72.8% of relevant and 27.8% of irrelevant road users and were able to recognize 36.1% of the relevant and 19.4% of irrelevant road users one min after leaving the intersection. Gaze behavior could predict road user relevance but not the outcome of the recognition task. Unexpectedly, 18% of road users observed beyond 10° were recognized. CONCLUSIONS: Despite suboptimal psychometric properties leading to low recognition rates, our recognition task could identify awareness of individual road users during left turn maneuvers. Perception occurred at gaze angles well beyond 2°, which means that fixation locations are insufficient for awareness monitoring. APPLICATION: Findings can be used in driver attention and awareness modelling, and design of gaze-based driver support systems.

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 (ß = 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.

Redesigning Today's Driving Automation Toward Adaptive Backup Control With Context-Based and Invisible Interfaces.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated a driver monitoring system (DMS) designed to adaptively back up distracted drivers with automated driving. BACKGROUND: Humans are likely inadequate for supervising today's on-road driving automation. Conversely, backup concepts can use eye-tracker DMS to retain the human as the primary driver and use computerized control only if needed. A distraction DMS where perceived false alarms are minimized and the status of the backup is unannounced might reduce problems of distrust and overreliance, respectively. Experimental research is needed to assess the viability of such designs. METHODS: In a driving simulator, 91 participants either supervised driving automation (auto-hand-on-wheel vs. auto-hands-off-wheel), drove with different forms of DMS-induced backup control (eyes-only-backup vs. eyes-plus-context-backup; visible-backup vs. invisible-backup), or drove without any automation. All participants performed a visual N-back task throughout. RESULTS: Supervised driving automation increased visual distraction and hazard non-responses compared to backup and conventional driving. Auto-hand-on-wheel improved response generation compared to auto-hands-off-wheel. Across entire driving trials, the backup improved lateral performance compared to conventional driving. Without negatively impacting safety, the eyes-plus-context-backup DMS reduced unnecessary automated control compared to the eyes-only-backup DMS conditions. Eyes-only-backup produced low satisfaction ratings, whereas eyes-plus-context-backup satisfaction was on par with automated driving. There were no appreciable negative consequences attributable to the invisible-backup driving automation. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated preliminary feasibility of DMS designs that incorporate driving context information for distraction assessment and suppress their status indication. APPLICATION: An appropriately designed DMS can enable benefits for automated driving as a backup.