| 1. |
- Ljung Aust, Mikael, 1973
(författare)
-
Improving the Evaluation Process for Active Safety Functions
- 2012
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The general aim of the present thesis was to improve key steps in the procedure for functional, formative evaluation of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). Five unresolved theoretical and empirical issues were identified and addressed. The first identified issue was the lack of a general conceptual framework for ADAS evaluation that can help formulate functional specifications and generate testable hypotheses on ADAS influence in critical driving scenarios. In response, a conceptual framework called Situational Control was developed.The second issue concerned the current ways in which crash data is used to specify ADAS evaluation scenarios. An improved methodology for linking a set of in-depth investigated case studies to a general crash type was developed and successfully tested. The third issue concerned the extent to which data from in-depth investigations of fatal crashes can be used to specify ADAS evaluation scenarios. Some countries have fully representative in-depth investigated datasets for this crash type, but their relevance for ADAS evaluation has not been investigated. An empirical study of causation information in fatal intersection crashes was performed. However, the information collected in these investigations was found to be limited in ways which made them less useful for defining ADAS evaluation scenarios. The fourth issue was whether sufficiently critical driving events that result in realistic driver responses can be created and repeated in driving simulator based ADAS evaluation. A study was performed in which two groups of drivers, one with and one without FCW, were exposed to repeated critical lead vehicle braking events. Results indicate that while creating a single surprise event is possible, interaction effects that compromise result generalizability occur when the critical event is repeated. The fifth issue concerned principles for how to assess the combined influence multiple ADAS when present in the same vehicle. A study of an FOT evaluated ADAS bundle consisting of FCW and ACC was carried out to empirically test whether existing conceptual models for calculating the combined effect of multiple safety functions were applicable. The results indicate that existing models were too simplistic to account for the complex modifications of driver behavior found in the data.
|
|
| 2. |
- Victor, Trent, 1968, et al.
(författare)
-
Automation Expectation Mismatch: Incorrect Prediction Despite Eyes on Threat and Hands on Wheel
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Human Factors. - : SAGE Publications. - 1547-8181 .- 0018-7208. ; 60:8, s. 1095-1116
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: The aim of this study was to understand how to secure driver supervision engagement and conflict intervention performance while using highly reliable (but not perfect) automation. Background: Securing driver engagement—by mitigating irony of automation (i.e., the better the automation, the less attention drivers will pay to traffic and the system, and the less capable they will be to resume control) and by communicating system limitations to avoid mental model misconceptions—is a major challenge in the human factors literature. Method: One hundred six drivers participated in three test-track experiments in which we studied driver intervention response to conflicts after driving highly reliable but supervised automation. After 30 min, a conflict occurred wherein the lead vehicle cut out of lane to reveal a conflict object in the form of either a stationary car or a garbage bag. Results: Supervision reminders effectively maintained drivers’ eyes on path and hands on wheel. However, neither these reminders nor explicit instructions on system limitations and supervision responsibilities prevented 28% (21/76) of drivers from crashing with their eyes on the conflict object (car or bag). Conclusion: The results uncover the important role of expectation mismatches, showing that a key component of driver engagement is cognitive (understanding the need for action), rather than purely visual (looking at the threat), or having hands on wheel. Application: Automation needs to be designed either so that it does not rely on the driver or so that the driver unmistakably understands that it is an assistance system that needs an active driver to lead and share control.
|
|
