Abstract

The projected introduction of conditional automated driving systems to the market has sparked multifaceted research on human–machine interfaces (HMIs) for such systems. By moderating the roles of the human driver and the driving automation system, the HMI is indispensable in avoiding side effects of automation such as mode confusion, misuse, and disuse. In addition to safety aspects, the usability of HMIs plays a vital role in improving the trust and acceptance of the automated driving system. This paper aggregates common research methods and findings based on an extensive literature review. Empirical studies, frameworks, and review articles are included. Findings and conclusions are presented with a focus on study characteristics such as test cases, dependent variables, testing environments, or participant samples. These methods and findings are discussed critically, taking into consideration requirements for usability assessments of HMIs in the context of conditional automated driving. The paper concludes with a derivation of recommended study characteristics framing best practice advice for the design of experiments. The advised selection of scenarios and metrics will be applied in a future validation study series comprising a driving simulator experiment and three real driving experiments on test tracks in Germany, the USA, and Japan.

Highlights

  • The introduction of conditionally automated driving (CAD) vehicles drastically alters the role of the human in the car

  • Level 3 automated driving means that the automated driving system (ADS) is responsible for the entire driving task, while the human operator is ready to respond as necessary to ADS-issued requests to intervene and to system failures by resuming the driving task [1]

  • The test cases listed in the best practice advice of this review focus on transitions between, and the availability of, different automation levels in non-critical situations

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The introduction of conditionally automated driving (CAD) vehicles drastically alters the role of the human in the car. The transition of the human driver from the role of operator to the passenger role implies a paradigm change relative to the Level. 2 or partially automated systems that are available today [1,2]. This paradigm change, including transitions back and forth to lower levels of automated driving, affects the human–machine interface. CAD implies that the human must take back control of the driving task in cases where the system reaches a system boundary and in doing so, to resume manual driving. The resulting transition of the driving task from the automation system to the human requires an appropriate communication strategy as well as a human–machine interface (HMI) that supports the interaction between the two Information 2020, 11, 240; doi:10.3390/info11050240 www.mdpi.com/journal/information

Objectives
Methods
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call