On-road trust and perceived risk in Level 2 automation

Abstract

To encourage appropriate use of driving automation, we need to understand and monitor driver’s trust and risk perception. We examined (1) how trust and perceived risk are affected by automation, driving conditions and experience and (2) how well perceived risk can be inferred from behaviour and physiology at three levels: over traffic conditions, aggregated risk events, and individual risk events.30 users with and without automation experience drove a Toyota Corolla with driving support. Safety attitude, subjective ratings, behaviour and physiology were examined.Driving support encouraged a positive safety attitude and active driver involvement. It reduced latent hazards while maintaining saliently perceived risks. Drivers frequently overruled lane centring (3.1 times/minute) and kept their feet on or above the pedals using ACC (65.8% of time). They comfortably used support on curvy motorways and monotonic and congested highways but less in unstable traffic and on roundabouts. They trusted the automation 65.4%, perceived 36.0% risk, acknowledged the need to monitor and would not engage in more secondary tasks than during manual driving.Trust-in situation reduced 2.0% when using automation. It was 8.2% higher than trust-in-automation, presumably due to driver self-confidence. Driving conditions or conflicts between driver and automation did not affect trust-in-automation.At the traffic condition level, physiology showed weak and partially counter-intuitive effects. For aggregated risk events, skin conductance had the clearest response but was discernible from baseline in < 50%. Pupil dilation and heart rate only increased with strong braking and active lane departure assist. For individual risk events, a CNN classifier could not identify risk events from physiology. We conclude that GSR, heart rate and pupil dilation respond to perceived risk, but lack specificity to monitor it on individual events.