From partial and high automation to manual driving: Relationship between non-driving related tasks, drowsiness and take-over performance
Frederik Naujoks,Simon Höfling,Christian Purucker,Kathrin Zeeb
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.08.018
Abstract:Background: Until the level of full vehicle automation is reached, users of vehicle automation systems will be required to take over manual control of the vehicle occasionally and stay fallback-ready to some extent during the drive. Both, drowsiness caused by inactivity and the engagement in distracting non-driving related tasks (NDRTs) such as entertainment or office work have been suggested to impair the driver's ability to safely handle these transitions of control. Thus, it is an open question whether engagement in NDRTs will impair or improve take-over performance. Method: In a motion-based driving simulator, 64 participants completed an automated drive that lasted either one or two hours using either a partially or highly automated driving system. In the partially automated driving condition, a warning was issued after several seconds when drivers took both hands off the steering wheel, while the highly automated driving system allowed hands-off driving permanently. Drivers were allowed to bring along their smartphones and to use them during the drive. They engaged in a wide variety of NDRTs such as reading or using social media. At the end of the session, drivers had to react to a sudden lead vehicle braking event. In the partial automation condition, there was no take-over request (TOR) to notify the drivers of the braking vehicle, while in the highly automated condition, the situation happened right after the drivers had deactivated the automation in response to a TOR. The lead time of the TOR was set at 8 s. Driver's level of drowsiness, workload (visual, mental and motoric) from carrying out the NDRT and motivational appeal of the NDRT right before the control transition were video-coded and used to predict the outcome of the braking event (i.e., reaction and system deactivation times, minimal Time-to-collision (TTC) and self-reported criticality) with a multiple regression approach. Results: In the partial automation condition, reaction times to the braking vehicle and situation criticality as measured by the minimum TTC could be well predicted. Main predictors for increased reaction time were drowsiness and motivational appeal of the NDRT. However, visual and mental demand associated with NDRTs did decrease reaction time, suggesting that the NDRT helped the drivers to maintain alertness during the partially automated drive. Accordingly, drowsiness and motivational appeal of the NDRT increased situation criticality, while cognitive load due to the NDRT decreased it. In the highly automated condition, however, it was not possible to predict system deactivation time (in reaction to the TOR), brake reaction time to the braking vehicle and situation criticality by observed drowsiness and NDRT engagement. Discussion: The results suggest a relationship between the driver's drowsiness and NDRT engagement in partial automation but not in highly automated driving. Several explanations for this finding are discussed. It could be possible that the lead time of 8 s might have given the drivers enough time to complete the driver state transition process from executing NDRTs to manual driving, putting them in a position to be able to cope with the driving event, while this was not possible in the partial automation condition. Methodological issues that might have led to a non-detection of an effect of drowsiness or NDRT engagement in the highly automated driving condition, such as the sample size and sensitivity of the observer ratings, are also discussed.