Abstract
One of the most significant concerns regarding the use of Highly-Automated Driving (HAD) is drivers’ ability to regain control. Vibro-tactile alerts were already suggested as an effective modality for Take-Over Requests (TOR).
However, it is not clear whether such alerts should be ipsilateral or contralateral relative to the location of hazards.
Studies regarding tactile directionality in other domains, as well as in non-HAD vehicles have found mixed results. In the currentstudy, 15 participants drove a highly-automated vehicle in a desktop configuration driving simulator.
Each participant experienced two TORs in which they were required to regain control and divert the vehicle away from an impending hazard, situated 4 seconds in front of them. The disengagement of the autonomous driver
was signaled to drivers using a directional tactile alert. For half of the participants, the tactile alert was directed to the direction of the hazard (contralateral), for the other half, the alert was directed away from it (ipsilateral).
Results showed that drivers in both groups made the same amount of errors (initially steering the vehicle in the
direction of the hazard before steering it away). However, when using ipsilateral alerts, drivers were faster to
steer the vehicle away from the hazard. While this result is in contradiction to previous studies regarding the use
of directional cues in driving, it is in-line with research regarding directional responses in other domains. We
suggest an explanation for this discrepancy and discuss its implications.
However, it is not clear whether such alerts should be ipsilateral or contralateral relative to the location of hazards.
Studies regarding tactile directionality in other domains, as well as in non-HAD vehicles have found mixed results. In the currentstudy, 15 participants drove a highly-automated vehicle in a desktop configuration driving simulator.
Each participant experienced two TORs in which they were required to regain control and divert the vehicle away from an impending hazard, situated 4 seconds in front of them. The disengagement of the autonomous driver
was signaled to drivers using a directional tactile alert. For half of the participants, the tactile alert was directed to the direction of the hazard (contralateral), for the other half, the alert was directed away from it (ipsilateral).
Results showed that drivers in both groups made the same amount of errors (initially steering the vehicle in the
direction of the hazard before steering it away). However, when using ipsilateral alerts, drivers were faster to
steer the vehicle away from the hazard. While this result is in contradiction to previous studies regarding the use
of directional cues in driving, it is in-line with research regarding directional responses in other domains. We
suggest an explanation for this discrepancy and discuss its implications.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Title of host publication | Proceedings of the 6th Humanist Conference. The Hague, Netherlands |
Place of Publication | Hague |
Publisher | NL HUMANIST publications |
Pages | 1-6 |
Number of pages | 6 |
State | Published - 14 Jun 2018 |
Event | Proceedings of the 6th Humanist Conference - Hague, Netherlands Duration: 13 Jun 2018 → 14 Jun 2018 |
Conference
Conference | Proceedings of the 6th Humanist Conference |
---|---|
Country/Territory | Netherlands |
Period | 13/06/18 → 14/06/18 |