Assessing Drivers' Trust of Automated Vehicle Driving Styles With a Two-Part Mixed Model of Intervention Tendency and Magnitude.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines how driving styles of fully automated vehicles affect drivers' trust using a statistical technique-the two-part mixed model-that considers the frequency and magnitude of drivers' interventions. BACKGROUND: Adoption of fully automated vehicles depends on how people accept and trust them, and the vehicle's driving style might have an important influence. METHOD: A driving simulator experiment exposed participants to a fully automated vehicle with three driving styles (aggressive, moderate, and conservative) across four intersection types (with and without a stop sign and with and without crossing path traffic). Drivers indicated their dissatisfaction with the automation by depressing the brake or accelerator pedals. A two-part mixed model examined how automation style, intersection type, and the distance between the automation's driving style and the person's driving style affected the frequency and magnitude of their pedal depression. RESULTS: The conservative automated driving style increased the frequency and magnitude of accelerator pedal inputs; conversely, the aggressive style increased the frequency and magnitude of brake pedal inputs. The two-part mixed model showed a similar pattern for the factors influencing driver response, but the distance between driving styles affected how often the brake pedal was pressed, but it had little effect on how much it was pressed. CONCLUSION: Eliciting brake and accelerator pedal responses provides a temporally precise indicator of drivers' trust of automated driving styles, and the two-part model considers both the discrete and continuous characteristics of this indicator. APPLICATION: We offer a measure and method for assessing driving styles.

Designing for the Extremes: Modeling Drivers' Response Time to Take Back Control From Automation Using Bayesian Quantile Regression.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding the factors that affect drivers' response time in takeover from automation can help guide the design of vehicle systems to aid drivers. Higher quantiles of the response time distribution might indicate a higher risk of an unsuccessful takeover. Therefore, assessments of these systems should consider upper quantiles rather than focusing on the central tendency. BACKGROUND: Drivers' responses to takeover requests can be assessed using the time it takes the driver to take over control. However, all the takeover timing studies that we could find focused on the mean response time. METHOD: A study using an advanced driving simulator evaluated the effect of takeover request timing, event type at the onset of a takeover, and visual demand on drivers' response time. A mixed effects model was fit to the data using Bayesian quantile regression. RESULTS: Takeover request timing, event type that precipitated the takeover, and the visual demand all affect driver response time. These factors affected the 85th percentile differently than the median. This was most evident in the revealed stopped vehicle event and conditions with a longer time budget and scenes with lower visual demand. CONCLUSION: Because the factors affect the quantiles of the distribution differently, a focus on the mean response can misrepresent actual system performance. The 85th percentile is an important performance metric because it reveals factors that contribute to delayed responses and potentially dangerous outcomes, and it also indicates how well the system accommodates differences between drivers.

Modeling road user response timing in naturalistic traffic conflicts: A surprise-based framework.

There is currently no established method for evaluating human response timing across a range of naturalistic traffic conflict types. Traditional notions derived from controlled experiments, such as perception-response time, fail to account for the situation-dependency of human responses and offer no clear way to define the stimulus in many common traffic conflict scenarios. As a result, they are not well suited for application in naturalistic settings. We present a novel framework for measuring and modeling response times in naturalistic traffic conflicts applicable to automated driving systems as well as other traffic safety domains. The framework suggests that response timing must be understood relative to the subject's current (prior) belief and is always embedded in, and dependent on, the dynamically evolving situation. The response process is modeled as a belief update process driven by perceived violations to this prior belief, that is, by surprising stimuli. The framework resolves two key limitations with traditional notions of response time when applied in naturalistic scenarios: (1) The strong situation dependence of response timing and (2) how to unambiguously define the stimulus. Resolving these issues is a challenge that must be addressed by any response timing model intended to be applied in naturalistic traffic conflicts. We show how the framework can be implemented by means of a relatively simple heuristic model fit to naturalistic human response data from real crashes and near crashes from the SHRP2 dataset and discuss how it is, in principle, generalizable to any traffic conflict scenario. We also discuss how the response timing framework can be implemented computationally based on evidence accumulation enhanced by machine learning-based generative models and the information-theoretic concept of surprise.