Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The relationship between level of engagement in a non-driving task and driver response time when taking control of an automated vehicle

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drivers of conditionally automated vehicles may occasionally be required to take control of their vehicle due to system boundaries, but their performance in such cases might be impaired if they were engaged in non-driving tasks. In this study, we conducted an experiment in a driving simulator, where the non-driving task involved playing a video game. We tested whether, after a take-over request (TOR), driver behaviour can be predicted from measures of game engagement. A sample of 28 participants drove in two counterbalanced conditions—manual driving and automated driving—and needed to change lanes at a certain time in their trip following auditory and visual requests. In the automated condition, drivers could play an endless runner game and were instructed to deactivate the automated mode to change lanes when they received a TOR. We used the proportion of glance durations on the game and the time between game sessions as indicators of game engagement. Findings showed that drivers were highly engaged in the video game during the automated driving session (more than 70% of the time) and that the inspection of driving-related areas of interests was significantly altered by this engagement. Moreover, the two indicators of game engagement predicted drivers’ response times to the TOR. Our findings suggest that indices of game engagement might assist in setting better timing for TORs and therefore, that it might be beneficial to synchronize measures of game engagement consoles with automated vehicle decision algorithms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Adapted from Zeeb et al. (2015)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arbabzadeh N (2017) Integrated frameworks for knowledge discovery in human-machine complex systems using multiple data streams. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University-Graduate School-New Brunswick

  • Bishop R (2000) Intelligent vehicle applications worldwide. Intell Syst Appl IEEE 15(1):78–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark H, Feng J (2017) Age differences in the takeover of vehicle control and engagement in non-driving-related activities in simulated driving with conditional automation. Accid Anal Prev 106:468–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Winter JC, Happee R, Martens MH, Stanton NA (2014) Effects of adaptive cruise control and highly automated driving on workload and situation awareness: a review of the empirical evidence. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 27:196–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diederichs F, Bischoff S, Widlroither H, Reilhac P, Hottelart K, Moizard J (2015) Smartphone integration and SAE level 3 car automation: a new cockpit concept and its evaluation in a car simulator. Der Fahrer im 21:63–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbaum T, Wagner M, Botzer A (2017) Cyclopean, dominant, and non-dominant gaze tracking for smooth pursuit gaze interaction. J Eye Mov Res 10(1):2 (1–14)

    Google Scholar 

  • Endsley MR (1995) Toward a theory of situation awareness. Hum Factors 37:32–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson A, Stanton NA (2017a) Driving performance after self-regulated control transitions in highly automated vehicles. Hum Factors 59:1233–1248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817728774

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson A, Stanton NA (2017b) Takeover time in highly automated vehicles: noncritical transitions to and from manual control. Hum Factors 59:689–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816685832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock PA, Chignell MH (1987) Adaptive control in human–machine systems, Chap 8. In: Advances in psychology, vol 47. Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 305–345

  • Holmqvist K, Nyström M, Andersson R, Dewhurst R, Jarodzka H, Van de Weijer J (2011) Eye tracking: a comprehensive guide to methods and measures. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Horrey WJ, Wickens CD (2006) Examining the impact of cell phone conversations on driving using meta-analytic techniques. Hum Factors 48(1):196–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2014) Road vehicles—measurement of driver visual behaviour with respect to transport information and control systems—part 1: definitions and parameters. ISO 15007-1:2014(en). Retrieved August 28, 2019 from https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:15007:-1:ed-2:v1:en

  • Ko SM, Ji YG (2018) How we can measure the non-driving-task engagement in automated driving: comparing flow experience and workload. Appl Ergon 67:237–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lalmas M, O’Brien H, Yom-Tov E (2014) Measuring user engagement. Synth Lect Inf Concepts Retr Serv 6(4):1–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Melcher V, Rauh S, Diederichs F, Widlroither H, Bauer W (2015) Take-over requests for automated driving. Procedia Manuf 3:2867–2873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memmert D (2006) The effects of eye movements, age, and expertise on inattentional blindness. Conscious Cogn 15(3):620–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merat N, Jamson AH, Lai FC, Daly M, Carsten O (2014) Transition to manual: driver behavior when resuming control from a highly automated vehicle. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 26:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musicant O, Botzer A, Laufer I, Collet C (2018) Relationship between kinematic and physiological indices during braking events of different intensities. Hum Factors 60(3):415–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musicant O, Laufer I, Botzer A (2019) Changes in physiological indices and deceleration behaviour as functions of braking demands and driver’s physiological cluster. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 62:406–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naujoks F, Höfling S, Purucker C, Zeeb K (2018) From partial and high automation to manual driving: relationship between non-driving related tasks, drowsiness and take-over performance. Accid Anal Prev 121:28–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radlmayr J, Gold C, Lorenz L, Farid M, Bengler K (2014) How traffic situations and non-driving related tasks affect the take-over quality in highly automated driving. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 58, no 1. Sage Publications, Sage, pp 2063–2067‏

  • Reilhac P, Hottelart K, Diederichs F, Nowakowski C (2017) User experience with increasing levels of vehicle automation: overview of the challenges and opportunities as vehicles progress from partial to high automation. In: Meixner G, Müller C (eds) Automotive user interfaces. Springer, Cham, pp 457–482

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • SAE International (2018) Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. SAE Standard J3016, report no J3016-201806. Warrendale, PA

  • Salinger J (2012) Human factors for limited-ability autonomous driving systems. Presented at the transportation research board road vehicle automation workshop, Irvine, CA. Retrieved August 28, 2019 from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conferences/2012/Automation/presentations/Salinger.pdf

  • Sinelnikova A, Lee J, Reimer B, Mehler B, Coughlin JF (2015) Predicting secondary task involvement and differences in task modality using field highway driving data. In: 8th international driving symposium on human factors in driver assessment, training, and vehicle design. Salt Lake City Utah, USA

  • Son J, Park M (2017) Situation awareness and transitions in highly automated driving: a framework and mini review. J Ergon 7:212. https://doi.org/10.4172/2165-7556.1000212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strayer DL, Drews FA, Crouch DJ, Johnston WA, Walker TAIW, Herrmann D (2005) Why do cell phone conversations interfere with driving? In: Walker W, Hermann D (eds) Cognitive technology: Essays on the transformation of thought and society. McFarland and Company Inc., Jefferson, USA, 51–68

  • Victor TW (2005) Keeping eye and mind on the road. Dissertation. University of Uppsala

  • Wagner M, Sahar Y, Elbaum T, Botzer A, Berliner E (2015) Grip force as a measure of stress in aviation. Int J Aviat Psychol 25(3–4):157–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeeb K, Buchner A, Schrauf M (2015) What determines the take-over time? An integrated model approach of driver take-over after automated driving. Accid Anal Prev 78:212–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeeb K, Buchner A, Schrauf M (2016) Is take-over time all that matters? The impact of visual-cognitive load on driver take-over quality after conditionally automated driving. Accid Anal Prev 92:230–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Renault Company, which commissioned and supported this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lab-STICC UMR CNRS 6285, University of South Brittany, Lorient, France

    Philippe Rauffet, Christine Chauvin & Camille Tordet

  2. Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel

    Assaf Botzer

  3. LMBA UMR CNRS 6205, University of South Brittany, Lorient, France

    Farida Saïd

Authors
  1. Philippe Rauffet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Assaf Botzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christine Chauvin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Farida Saïd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Camille Tordet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philippe Rauffet.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rauffet, P., Botzer, A., Chauvin, C. et al. The relationship between level of engagement in a non-driving task and driver response time when taking control of an automated vehicle. Cogn Tech Work 22, 721–731 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00611-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00611-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation