Trust in automated vehicles: constructs, psychological processes, and assessment.

There is a growing body of research on trust in driving automation systems. In this paper, we seek to clarify the way trust is conceptualized, calibrated and measured taking into account issues related to specific levels of driving automation. We find that: (1) experience plays a vital role in trust calibration; (2) experience should be measured not just in terms of distance traveled, but in terms of the range of situations encountered; (3) system malfunctions and recovery from such malfunctions is a fundamental part of this experience. We summarize our findings in a framework describing the dynamics of trust calibration. We observe that methods used to quantify trust often lack objectivity, reliability, and validity, and propose a set of recommendations for researchers seeking to select suitable trust measures for their studies. In conclusion, we argue that the safe deployment of current and future automated vehicles depends on drivers developing appropriate levels of trust. Given the potentially severe consequences of miscalibrated trust, it is essential that drivers incorporate the possibility of new and unexpected driving situations in their mental models of system capabilities. It is vitally important that we develop methods that contribute to this goal.

Test procedure for evaluating the human-machine interface of vehicles with automated driving systems.

Objective: The human-machine interface (HMI) is a crucial part of every automated driving system (ADS). In the near future, it is likely that-depending on the operational design domain (ODD)-different levels of automation will be available within the same vehicle. The capabilities of a given automation level as well as the operator's responsibilities must be communicated in an appropriate way. To date, however, there are no agreed-upon evaluation methods that can be used by human factors practitioners as well as researchers to test this. Methods: We developed an iterative test procedure that can be applied during the product development cycle of ADS. The test procedure is specifically designed to evaluate whether minimum requirements as proposed in NHTSA's automated vehicle policy are met. Results: The proposed evaluation protocol includes (a) a method to identify relevant use cases for testing on the basis of all theoretically possible steady states and mode transitions of a given ADS; (b) an expert-based heuristic assessment to evaluate whether the HMI complies with applicable norms, standards, and best practices; and (c) an empirical evaluation of ADS HMIs using a standardized design for user studies and performance metrics. Conclusions: Each can be used as a stand-alone method or in combination to generate objective, reliable, and valid evaluations of HMIs, focusing on whether they meet minimum requirements. However, we also emphasize that other evaluation aspects such as controllability, misuse, and acceptance are not within the scope of the evaluation protocol.

Take-over performance in evasive manoeuvres.

We investigated after effects of automation in take-over scenarios in a high-end moving-base driving simulator. Drivers performed evasive manoeuvres encountering a blocked lane in highway driving. We compared the performance of drivers 1) during manual driving, 2) after automated driving with eyes on the road while performing the cognitively demanding n-back task, and 3) after automated driving with eyes off the road performing the visually demanding SuRT task. Both minimum time to collision (TTC) and minimum clearance towards the obstacle disclosed a substantial number of near miss events and are regarded as valuable surrogate safety metrics in evasive manoeuvres. TTC proved highly sensitive to the applied definition of colliding paths, and we prefer robust solutions using lane position while disregarding heading. The extended time to collision (ETTC) which takes into account acceleration was close to the more robust conventional TTC. In line with other publications, the initial steering or braking intervention was delayed after using automation compared to manual driving. This resulted in lower TTC values and stronger steering and braking actions. Using automation, effects of cognitive distraction were similar to visual distraction for the intervention time with effects on the surrogate safety metric TTC being larger with visual distraction. However the precision of the evasive manoeuvres was hardly affected with a similar clearance towards the obstacle, similar overshoots and similar excursions to the hard shoulder. Further research is needed to validate and complement the current simulator based results with human behaviour in real world driving conditions. Experiments with real vehicles can disclose possible systematic differences in behaviour, and naturalistic data can serve to validate surrogate safety measures like TTC and obstacle clearance in evasive manoeuvres.

Prior Familiarization With Takeover Requests Affects Drivers' Takeover Performance and Automation Trust.

OBJECTIVE: The objective for this study was to investigate the effects of prior familiarization with takeover requests (TORs) during conditional automated driving on drivers' initial takeover performance and automation trust. BACKGROUND: System-initiated TORs are one of the biggest concerns for conditional automated driving and have been studied extensively in the past. Most, but not all, of these studies have included training sessions to familiarize participants with TORs. This makes them hard to compare and might obscure first-failure-like effects on takeover performance and automation trust formation. METHOD: A driving simulator study compared drivers' takeover performance in two takeover situations across four prior familiarization groups (no familiarization, description, experience, description and experience) and automation trust before and after experiencing the system. RESULTS: As hypothesized, prior familiarization with TORs had a more positive effect on takeover performance in the first than in a subsequent takeover situation. In all groups, automation trust increased after participants experienced the system. Participants who were given no prior familiarization with TORs reported highest automation trust both before and after experiencing the system. CONCLUSION: The current results extend earlier findings suggesting that prior familiarization with TORs during conditional automated driving will be most relevant for takeover performance in the first takeover situation and that it lowers drivers' automation trust. APPLICATION: Potential applications of this research include different approaches to familiarize users with automated driving systems, better integration of earlier findings, and sophistication of experimental designs.

Keep Your Scanners Peeled: Gaze Behavior as a Measure of Automation Trust During Highly Automated Driving.

OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of measuring drivers' automation trust via gaze behavior during highly automated driving was assessed with eye tracking and validated with self-reported automation trust in a driving simulator study. BACKGROUND: Earlier research from other domains indicates that drivers' automation trust might be inferred from gaze behavior, such as monitoring frequency. METHOD: The gaze behavior and self-reported automation trust of 35 participants attending to a visually demanding non-driving-related task (NDRT) during highly automated driving was evaluated. The relationship between dispositional, situational, and learned automation trust with gaze behavior was compared. RESULTS: Overall, there was a consistent relationship between drivers' automation trust and gaze behavior. Participants reporting higher automation trust tended to monitor the automation less frequently. Further analyses revealed that higher automation trust was associated with lower monitoring frequency of the automation during NDRTs, and an increase in trust over the experimental session was connected with a decrease in monitoring frequency. CONCLUSION: We suggest that (a) the current results indicate a negative relationship between drivers' self-reported automation trust and monitoring frequency, (b) gaze behavior provides a more direct measure of automation trust than other behavioral measures, and (c) with further refinement, drivers' automation trust during highly automated driving might be inferred from gaze behavior. APPLICATION: Potential applications of this research include the estimation of drivers' automation trust and reliance during highly automated driving.