| 1. |
- Adell, Emeli, et al.
(författare)
-
Developing HMI components for a driver assistance system for safe speed and safe distance
- 2008
-
Ingår i: IET Intelligent Transport Systems. - : Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET). - 1751-9578 .- 1751-956X. ; 2:1, s. 1-14
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper describes a pre-screening procedure that was carried out with a number of candidate Human-Machine-Interaction solutions in three different modes (visual, auditory and haptic) for the concepts of “safe speed and safe distance” (referred to as SASPENCE) of an Advanced Driver Assistance System (termed as ADAS). This procedure was performed simultaneously in two European countries, Sweden and Spain, in 2004. In each country two groups of about 30 drivers each participated in the two-phase procedure. Eleven visual display alternatives for speed information and ten alternatives for distance warning as well as twelve auditory warning sounds were screened by a standard procedure. In addition, two alternatives of haptic feedback via the accelerator pedal were tested in a mock-up driving seat. The overall results provide recommendations for visual, auditory and haptic feedback alternatives to build a driver support system for safe speed and safe distance.
|
|
| 2. |
- Jansen, Sven, et al.
(författare)
-
Validation Results
- 2008
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This report describes the validation of the SASPENCE driver support system using an evaluation method which has been developed within the scope of the SAfe SPEed and safe distaNCE (SASPENCE) project. SASPENCE aims to develop a driver support system that focuses on keeping a safe speed and safe heading distance in relation to other road users and road infrastructure. The system warns the driver to adapt to the situation and consequently the driver actions are influencing the effectiveness of SASPENCE. The Human Machine Interface design has therefore been a key aspect in the development of the system. The developed evaluation method is capable of dealing with a large variation of circumstances (including driver behaviour) and in all steps of the evaluation (apart from straightforward hardware tests) the driver is considered. The evaluation method consists of simulation-based functional tests, on-road functional tests, on-road subjective tests, and traffic impact assessment using simulation. The simulation-based functional tests (using a driver model) have been undertaken in three stages using a probabilistic method to cope with the large variation of circumstances. In the first stage a large number of Monte Carlo simulations were performed to assess the effectiveness of the basic SASPENCE algorithm, and to identify the most critical situations. In the second stage, Software-in-the-Loop simulations have been used to reduce the number of critical situations in order to arrive at a practical number of Hardware-in-the-Loop (HIL) experiments. The HIL experiments confirmed the effectiveness of the results of Monte Carlo simulations, and they additionally provided estimates for dependability parameters (i.e. Safety, Reliability, Appropriateness and Timeliness). On-road functional tests addressed conditions that can not be realised in HIL experiments; however, Appropriateness and Timeliness could not be determined. On-road subjective tests have been carried out in Spain and Italy by selecting 20 drivers at each location and letting each driver run a 50 km course with and without the SASPENCE system activated. Both experimental vehicles were equipped with systems for monitoring the driving session, recording camera images and vehicle motion data. Moreover, the Wiener Fahrprobe in-car observation method was used for the analysis of driver behaviour during the tests. From the users’ point of view, the system has been positively rated as being useful and well accepted by drivers, to an extent that the majority would be willing to pay up to 500 Euro to have it installed in their own vehicle. Also, from the experts’ point of view, the system was rated positively as for instance the number of conflicts and the number of events related to individual behavioural aspects decreased. The recorded vehicle data also confirmed the effectiveness of the system to reduce speed and increase heading distance. The Traffic impact assessment simulations show that the impact of SASPENCE is most apparent for high congestion levels where the positive (safety) effect is an increasing Time-to-Collision. However, the large reduction in the mean speed adversely affects traffic throughput.
|
|
| 3. |
- Varhelyi, Andras, et al.
(författare)
-
HMI Design. SASPENCE Technical Report C20.52. PReVENT Consortium.
- 2006
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The objectives of this activity were to propose a number of alternative HMI solutions (visual, auditory and haptic) for the concept of Safe Speed and Safe Distance and to carry out a pre-screening procedure with a number of test persons in order to give recommendations for the alternative building elements of the SASPENCE “warning-package” consisting of the combination of these modes to be tested in driving simulator in a consecutive study. These pre-screening tests were performed in two European countries (namely, Sweden and Spain) in order to cover a wider group of drivers as well as to investigate potential nationality or cultural differences in HMI preferences. In each country, two groups of about 30 test persons participated in the two-phase test procedure. For the screening procedure of visual symbols (11 candidate displays for speed information and 10 for distance warning) an established standard procedure for evaluating candidate symbols developed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) was used. The auditory warning sounds were tested according to a procedure where the participants were asked to rate each sound (totally 12 candidate sounds) according to 13 statements. Moreover, in the Swedish experiments, two alternatives of haptic feed-back via the accelerator pedal were tested in a mock-up driving seat. And as a final task, the participants were asked to build their own warning package using alternatives of the different warning modes (visual/auditory/haptic). Based on the results from the tests of the various candidates the best alternative of visual display and haptic display is recommended to build the SASPENCE speed information/warning function. In the same way, for the distance warning function, the best alternative of visual display, an auditory speech message telling “Distance” and either Force feed-back or pulsating accelerator pedal is recommended. Various combinations of these “building blocks” are possible, of which the ones judged to form the most promising “package” should be tested in driving simulator studies.
|
|
| 4. |
- Varhelyi, Andras, et al.
(författare)
-
HMI Literature review
- 2006
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The aim of this report is to give an overview on previous research on HMI, relevant for the concept of “Safe Speed and Safe Distance”. The review of the literature shows that providing the driver with relevant, timely information is of paramount importance. The ideal HMI system gives the driver concise but comprehensive timely information allowing him/her sufficient time for reading and understanding and to react. Various alternatives of visual, auditory and haptic warnings for keeping safe speed and distance as well as the effects of these modes are discussed. Auditory and haptic warnings trigger faster responses and are more effective to keep drivers out of a critical car-following zone compared to a visual display. The longer initial response to a visual display can be explained by that the driver´s attention had to be diverted from the driving task in order to attend to the warning being presented. Also, an inattentive or distracted driver may not detect a visual collision warning display, since his/her visual attention may be directed elsewhere at the same time the warning is presented. An auditory or haptic warning is independent of where the driver is directing visual attention. Auditory warnings are perceived as more annoying than haptic warnings hence haptic warnings may be preferred over auditory warnings. Including a visual alert modality component in a warning system helps explain the auditory or haptic collision warning components to the driver. If there is a mismatch between vision and the haptic display, vision should dominate. For the “Safe speed and safe distance” concept a multi modal warning system is recommended, consisting of the most promising visual, auditory and haptic candidate alternatives carefully selected based on driver preferences.
|
|
