Objective: This review systematically investigates the determination of sufficient time budgets in conditionally automated driving, focusing on the interplay between takeover time, allocated time budgets, and outcomes.

Background: Conditionally automated driving requires human drivers to resume vehicle control within limited time budgets when system limits are reached. However, the significant variability in drivers’ takeover time (the time needed to regain control) poses challenges in balancing time budgets to avoid being too short (compromising safety and comfort) or too long (reducing driver alertness). Prior work lacks systematic exploration of sufficient time budgets across scenarios and drivers.

Method: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, 100 articles are selected for review. Review papers are analyzed to extract overarching insights on time budget design, while primary empirical studies are examined to complement and validate the findings. We systematically synthesize evidence along the takeover sequence, covering (i) drivers’ required takeover time, (ii) the time budgets provided by automated driving systems, and (iii) the resulting takeover outcomes. Based on the synthesis, we further discuss how the reviewed evidence informs the design of adaptive time budgets.

Results: This review synthesizes evidence on the takeover sequence and shows that takeover time varies significantly across drivers and driving contexts. Fixed time budgets cannot accommodate such variability. Adaptive time budgets that adjust to driver takeover demands are therefore promising. We propose an adaptive framework in which the time budget is defined as the sum of a predicted takeover time and an additional takeover buffer. To support this framework, the review identifies a qualitative inverted-U relationship among takeover time, time budget, and takeover outcomes: outcomes improve when the time budget exceeds the predicted takeover time, but deteriorate when the budget becomes unnecessarily long. Conclusion: Structuring the takeover sequence clarifies trade-offs in time budget design. Adaptive approaches that estimate takeover time and allocate an appropriate takeover buffer to achieve targeted outcomes show promise yet warrant further investigation. Application: Insights can optimize human-vehicle interactions for safe and comfortable takeovers, thus promoting public trust and acceptance of conditionally automated driving.

In automated vehicles, beeps are widely used as alarms and feedback. However, as automation advances, there is a need to explore subtler, contextually sound-based notifications for non-urgent situations. While auditory interfaces for take-over requests have been studied, limited attention has been given to using soundscapes for such alerts. This paper designed and evaluated soundscapes using existing driving-related sounds–amplified road noise and/or dimmed background music–for scheduled take-over situations. A driving simulator study showed that these soundscapes enhanced reaction time, situation awareness, and acceptance without causing annoyance. Particularly, the combined condition (music dimming and road noise amplifying) supported higher driver awareness and responsiveness. These findings suggest that soundscapes can offer safer, more intuitive take-over alerts by embedding information into familiar audio cues. This study contributes to developing soundscapes as novel alert mechanisms that integrate seamlessly with the driving environment to enhance both safety and user experience in automated vehicles.

Conditionally automated driving requires drivers to resume vehicle control within constrained time budgets upon receiving takeover requests. Accurately predicting drivers’ takeover time (ToT) is essential for dynamically adjusting time budgets to individual needs across scenarios. This study addresses enduring challenges in reliability and interpretability of ToT prediction models by optimizing predictor selection. Using a driving simulator experiment, we examine the relationship between ToT, driver characteristics, and perceived Spare Capacity (pSC, a cognitive construct from Task-Capability Interface theory) using Category Boosting models. Results show that (i) incorporating 13 additional driver characteristics does not significantly improve prediction accuracy when pSC is already considered; and (ii) individual characteristics influence how drivers cognitively process takeover scenarios, and their predictive contribution likely overlaps with pSC. These findings suggest that monitoring cognitive states may be more effective for ToT prediction than extensive profiling of driver characteristics. This study provides a critical first step toward predictive frameworks for adaptive takeover strategies and offers guidance for designing personalized human–vehicle interactions.

Conditionally automated driving enables drivers to engage in non-driving-related activities, with the responsibility to take over vehicle control upon request. This takeover process increases the risk of collisions, especially when drivers fail to safely complete takeovers within limited time budgets (i.e., the time offered by automation for takeovers). This phenomenon underlines the significance of providing time budgets that sufficiently accommodate drivers' takeover time (i.e., the time required by drivers to resume conscious control of vehicles). Considering that drivers' takeover time varies significantly across scenarios, this study centres on understanding the role of driver perception in takeover time using the Task-Capability Interface (TCI) theory. The TCI theory suggests that drivers adjust their behaviours based on their perceived task demands and driver capabilities. Accordingly, in a driving simulator experiment featuring diverse traffic densities and distractions, we investigated drivers' takeover time while capturing their perceived task demands and capabilities through a takeover-oriented questionnaire based on established instruments. The results show that drivers generally have longer takeover time as their perceived task demand rises, perceived driver capability diminishes, and perceived spare capacity (perceived driver capability minus perceived task demand) decreases. These patterns fluctuate under conditions of low perceived task demand or high perceived driver capability. When both conditions coincide, drivers necessitate a considerably longer time to regain vehicle control. Our findings on takeover time contribute to the development of strategies aimed at predicting drivers' takeover time, optimizing time budgets, fostering human-centred vehicle design, and enhancing the safety of conditionally automated driving.