| 1. |
- Adell, Emeli, et al.
(författare)
-
Test of HMI Alternatives for Driver Support to Keep Safe Speed and Safe Distance - A Simulator Study
- 2008
-
Ingår i: The Open Transportation Journal. - : Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.. - 1874-4478. ; 2, s. 53-64
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper describes a driving simulator trial to evaluate driver reactions to a number of alternative information/ warning modes of a multi-modal system for the “safe speed and safe distance” concept. In 2006, eight Human Machine Interaction alternatives, consisting of a combination of visual, haptic and auditory modes were used alternatively to give information/warning to the driver on safe speed, safe distance and the prevailing speed limit. Thirty-four test drivers drove once without the SASPENCE system and twice with the system. The system did not affect the speed behaviour of the driver in either normal conditions or sharp curves. The average number of alarms was slightly larger when driving with the system. The haptic HMI alternative - the combination of force feedback in the accelerator pedal and vibration of the seat belt for speed warning and pulsation in the accelerator pedal for distance warning - gave the lowest proportion of time of being in an unsafe situation, and improved driver-reaction time most. This haptic alternative also resulted in the most positive driver ratings/experiences of the system. The visual alternatives used were positively rated by the drivers, but no clear differences between them could be found according to opinions. The auditory feedback was not appreciated by the drivers. All the drivers stated they would accept the SASPENCE system if the system was installed in their cars free of charge. The majority would accept a system that was both informative and advisory, while some of them also stated they would accept an intervening system.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bruel, Laure, et al.
(författare)
-
HMI tests in simulator
- 2007
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The main goal of SASPENCE is to develop and evaluate an innovative system able to perform the Safe Speed and Safe Distance concept, that means to help the driver in avoiding accident situations related to excessive speed or too small headway. So, the system should co-operate seamlessly with the driver, suggesting the proper velocity for the given condition (road structure, traffic situation, etc.) preventing risky and dangerous situations and thus avoiding collision. This support is done through a Human Machine Interface (HMI). It is essential that the HMIs are easily understandable by the driver and that they induce a suitable reaction to the danger, otherwise the system is worthless. The simulator tests are the second step of the HMI design process that counts three of them. After the static tests that have enabled to show up the preferred visual, haptic and acoustic HMI, 8 combinations of HMI have been tested in dynamic conditions in the PSA driving simulator while part of the SASPENCE modules were running and tested. These tests should enable us to understand which HMIs are the best for the driver, that is to say, which HMI makes it possible to give the SASPENCE information in the clearest way to the driver. The main aims of these tests were to evaluate the effects of the SASPENCE system on drivers’ behaviour and to give recommendations for the HMI to be installed in the two test-cars, according to drivers’ preference and the efficiency of the HMI. They were also useful: - to improve the representativeness of the static tests results, - to check the good operation of some modules, that will be implemented in the test cars, and to check the good communication between the driver and the HMI, very early in the project, long before the demonstration cars are ready, - to complete the final road tests by measurements and observations in a more reproducible and observable conditions than the real road test. One interesting result of these tests is that the HMIs that were selected at the end of the static tests appeared to be too complex to be understood when one was driving. Another main result is that the SASPENCE system is efficient, as drivers spend less time in risky situations when driving with the SASPENCE system.
|
|
