D.D. Heikoop
Please Note
24 records found
1
Big Five personality and ADS
Tech-lover stereotype?
Automated vehicles are here now, available for everyone, and with that, everyone starts to want one too. But not everyone likes to drive automatically, or at least in this way. How can we personalize automated driving systems (ADS)? One way is by investigation drivers’ personality. For a large-scale simulator experiment, participants have been recruited by means of the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991; John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). Together with a demographics questionnaire, asking about (among others) experience with ADS, some interesting initial results can be presented on the differences between people in relation to ADS experience.
Methods
Participants were recruited at the Centraal Bureau voor Rijvaardigheidsbewijzen (CBR) and the Algemene Nederlands Wielrijders Bond (ANWB), among others. Requested to fill in an online questionnaire on demographics, manual- and automated driving experience and exposure, and the BFI, participants were categorised in one of the five traits. The initial data from these questionnaires will be presented here.
Results
A total of 85 participants (52 male) were recruited, aged between 23-66 years (M[SD]=46.0[10.3]), with 43.5% having experienced driving with ADS. A total of 11 participants were classified as Open (7 male), 18 as Conscientious (10 male), 13 as Extravert (8 male), 17 as Agreeable (12 male), and 26 as Neurotic (15 male). Men had driven more with ADS than women (1k-5k versus <1k), and those who had more ADS experience were older, or Agreeable women. Also a significant negative correlation with education and driving experience was found, except for Open drivers.
Conclusions
Results combined suggest tech-lover stereotype of rich older men favouring ADS. Furthermore, agreeable women drove more with ADS than agreeable men, which appears to be an odd outlier. The same goes for Open drivers, who do not follow the same trend as the other traits in relation to driving experience against education level: due to their intellectual curiosity? More research is needed; therefore, more participants are being recruited for this study. An update will be presented. ...
Automated vehicles are here now, available for everyone, and with that, everyone starts to want one too. But not everyone likes to drive automatically, or at least in this way. How can we personalize automated driving systems (ADS)? One way is by investigation drivers’ personality. For a large-scale simulator experiment, participants have been recruited by means of the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991; John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). Together with a demographics questionnaire, asking about (among others) experience with ADS, some interesting initial results can be presented on the differences between people in relation to ADS experience.
Methods
Participants were recruited at the Centraal Bureau voor Rijvaardigheidsbewijzen (CBR) and the Algemene Nederlands Wielrijders Bond (ANWB), among others. Requested to fill in an online questionnaire on demographics, manual- and automated driving experience and exposure, and the BFI, participants were categorised in one of the five traits. The initial data from these questionnaires will be presented here.
Results
A total of 85 participants (52 male) were recruited, aged between 23-66 years (M[SD]=46.0[10.3]), with 43.5% having experienced driving with ADS. A total of 11 participants were classified as Open (7 male), 18 as Conscientious (10 male), 13 as Extravert (8 male), 17 as Agreeable (12 male), and 26 as Neurotic (15 male). Men had driven more with ADS than women (1k-5k versus <1k), and those who had more ADS experience were older, or Agreeable women. Also a significant negative correlation with education and driving experience was found, except for Open drivers.
Conclusions
Results combined suggest tech-lover stereotype of rich older men favouring ADS. Furthermore, agreeable women drove more with ADS than agreeable men, which appears to be an odd outlier. The same goes for Open drivers, who do not follow the same trend as the other traits in relation to driving experience against education level: due to their intellectual curiosity? More research is needed; therefore, more participants are being recruited for this study. An update will be presented.
Investigating personality is commonly performed using the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991; John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). Five different traits can be distinguished using 44 multiple-choice questions, which can be convenient for preselecting participants; for instance for investigating individual differences in driving with automated vehicles. However, high scores on one trait are regularly accompanied with high scores on another. When aiming for unique participants per trait, this can be troublesome and time-consuming. This study provides a MATLAB calculation method solving this issue.
Methods
Participant selection is made through a selection algorithm. First, questionnaire answers are placed in an Excel file. Then, five lists (one for each category) are generated of the selected participants who have the highest results. Since it is possible that one participant acquires the highest score or the same percentage in different categories, two algorithms are used. The first normalizes the participants’ scores, and the second tracks the highest score of the five categories. Each participant was selected for (only) their best trait, making for the most profound traits for the entire selection.
Results
The resulting matrix presents five lists of unique participants with their corresponding score on their respective trait. The code works optimally at higher numbers of entries and has no upper boundary. When a participant scores equally high on two (or more) traits, it selects the trait most beneficial for the entire participant pool, so that each trait has the highest possible average.
Conclusions
Our MATLAB code, designed for selecting the most appropriate participant for each trait based on the BFI, is found to be successful in selecting unique participants for each trait, and accounting for equal scores on traits, preferring the entire participant pool over the individual scores. This code can be used by other researchers aiming to use the BFI as a means of selection criterion. Our code is found to be robust for higher numbers of entries, and quick and easy to use. ...
Investigating personality is commonly performed using the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991; John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). Five different traits can be distinguished using 44 multiple-choice questions, which can be convenient for preselecting participants; for instance for investigating individual differences in driving with automated vehicles. However, high scores on one trait are regularly accompanied with high scores on another. When aiming for unique participants per trait, this can be troublesome and time-consuming. This study provides a MATLAB calculation method solving this issue.
Methods
Participant selection is made through a selection algorithm. First, questionnaire answers are placed in an Excel file. Then, five lists (one for each category) are generated of the selected participants who have the highest results. Since it is possible that one participant acquires the highest score or the same percentage in different categories, two algorithms are used. The first normalizes the participants’ scores, and the second tracks the highest score of the five categories. Each participant was selected for (only) their best trait, making for the most profound traits for the entire selection.
Results
The resulting matrix presents five lists of unique participants with their corresponding score on their respective trait. The code works optimally at higher numbers of entries and has no upper boundary. When a participant scores equally high on two (or more) traits, it selects the trait most beneficial for the entire participant pool, so that each trait has the highest possible average.
Conclusions
Our MATLAB code, designed for selecting the most appropriate participant for each trait based on the BFI, is found to be successful in selecting unique participants for each trait, and accounting for equal scores on traits, preferring the entire participant pool over the individual scores. This code can be used by other researchers aiming to use the BFI as a means of selection criterion. Our code is found to be robust for higher numbers of entries, and quick and easy to use.
Realising Meaningful Human Control Over Automated Driving Systems
A Multidisciplinary Approach
Personality and Trust in Automated Cars
A Correlation Study
Automated driving systems (ADS) are exponentially increasing in occurrence and autonomy. Although general rules-of-thumb are slowly being adhered to regarding its human occupant—through Human-Machine Interfaces, take-over requests, etc.—different people respond differently to similar things. Currently, individualising ADS is trending, but no research investigated whether or to what extent different types of personality result in different levels of trust in ADS. This exploratory study asked 120 participants from around the world through an online questionnaire about their trust in ADS and assessed their personality, aimed at finding relations between personality traits and levels of trust in ADS.
Methods
Via an online crowd sourcing tool (Google CrowdSource), education platforms (university student association/notice boards), and social media (e.g., WhatsApp/Facebook), 120 participants from around the world filled out a questionnaire regarding trust in ADS. The survey included questionnaires on demographics, personality (Big Five Inventory; John et al. 1991; 2008), and trust in ADS (based on Jian and colleagues' [2000] questionnaire). Scores regarding level of trust were divided into five categories (very low to very high trust). A correlation analysis was performed for the Big Five Inventory and trust questionnaire scores per demographics variable.
Results
In total, 120 participants from 20 different countries (83 male, age M=27, SD=10) filled out the questionnaire. 20 participants did not have a driving license, and 68 were student. A moderate correlation was found where females scoring high on conscientiousness and those scoring low on neuroticism scored high on trust. Perhaps more interestingly, several correlations between trust and personality were found to score close to zero, meaning no correlation whatsoever. All demographics combined, openness and extraversion were least correlated to trust.
Conclusions
Although commonly thought that the average early adopter of automated driving systems are relatively old, wealthy males (see e.g., Hardman et al., 2019), our results were incapable of confirming this stereotype. Instead, automated driving systems appear to be trusted equally, regardless of the users' personality or demographics. Depsite being a relatively small, exploratory study, these results are promising, and should be expanded. Further research should go more in-depth, investigating other criteria of personality, demographics, and/or trust. ...
Automated driving systems (ADS) are exponentially increasing in occurrence and autonomy. Although general rules-of-thumb are slowly being adhered to regarding its human occupant—through Human-Machine Interfaces, take-over requests, etc.—different people respond differently to similar things. Currently, individualising ADS is trending, but no research investigated whether or to what extent different types of personality result in different levels of trust in ADS. This exploratory study asked 120 participants from around the world through an online questionnaire about their trust in ADS and assessed their personality, aimed at finding relations between personality traits and levels of trust in ADS.
Methods
Via an online crowd sourcing tool (Google CrowdSource), education platforms (university student association/notice boards), and social media (e.g., WhatsApp/Facebook), 120 participants from around the world filled out a questionnaire regarding trust in ADS. The survey included questionnaires on demographics, personality (Big Five Inventory; John et al. 1991; 2008), and trust in ADS (based on Jian and colleagues' [2000] questionnaire). Scores regarding level of trust were divided into five categories (very low to very high trust). A correlation analysis was performed for the Big Five Inventory and trust questionnaire scores per demographics variable.
Results
In total, 120 participants from 20 different countries (83 male, age M=27, SD=10) filled out the questionnaire. 20 participants did not have a driving license, and 68 were student. A moderate correlation was found where females scoring high on conscientiousness and those scoring low on neuroticism scored high on trust. Perhaps more interestingly, several correlations between trust and personality were found to score close to zero, meaning no correlation whatsoever. All demographics combined, openness and extraversion were least correlated to trust.
Conclusions
Although commonly thought that the average early adopter of automated driving systems are relatively old, wealthy males (see e.g., Hardman et al., 2019), our results were incapable of confirming this stereotype. Instead, automated driving systems appear to be trusted equally, regardless of the users' personality or demographics. Depsite being a relatively small, exploratory study, these results are promising, and should be expanded. Further research should go more in-depth, investigating other criteria of personality, demographics, and/or trust.
Automated buses in Europe
An inventory of pilots: Version 1.0
Automated buses in Europe
An inventory of pilots: Final Version
Automated buses in Europe
An inventory of pilots
Automated bus systems in Europe
A systematic review of passenger experience and road user interaction
Automated driving systems promise a tremendous amount of benefits. Especially when applied in the domain of public transport, economic and passenger advantages are thought to be manifold. As technology rapidly advances, and projects involving automated buses appear throughout the world, investigating how its users and surrounding road traffic interact with these novel technologies need to advance with a similar pace. However, up to now, a reliable and up-to-date overview of performed, running, and planned projects is lacking. Moreover, little is known about human interaction with automated bus systems, and what is known is not always reported. By means of a systematic review, an overview of the current state-of-the-art knowledge on the interaction between automated bus systems and its interactors is presented. Results of these studies are described and discussed, and implications are being made regarding future policies to be applied in this domain to safeguard safe interaction with automated bus systems.
Human behaviour with automated driving systems
A quantitative framework for meaningful human control
Automated driving systems (ADS) with partial automation are currently available for the consumer. They are potentially beneficial to traffic flow, fuel consumption, and safety, but human behaviour whilst driving with ADS is poorly understood. Human behaviour is currently expected to lead to dangerous circumstances as ADS could place human drivers ‘out-of-the-loop’ or cause other types of adverse behavioural adaptation. This article introduces the concept of ‘meaningful human control’ to better address the challenges raised by ADS, and presents a new framework of human control over ADS by means of literature-based categorisation. Using standards set by European authorities for driver skills and road rules, this framework offers a unique, quantified perspective into the effects of ADS on human behaviour. One main result is a rapid and inconsistent decrease in required skill- and rule-based behaviour mismatching with the increasing amount of required knowledge-based behaviour. Furthermore, the development of higher levels of automation currently requires different human behaviour than feasible, as a mismatch between supply and demand in terms of behaviour arises. Implications, discrepancies and emerging mismatches this framework elicits are discussed, and recommendations towards future design strategies and research opportunities are made to provide a meaningful transition of human control over ADS.
Acclimatizing to automation
Driver workload and stress during partially automated car following in real traffic
Automated driving systems are increasingly prevalent on public roads, but there is currently little knowledge on the level of workload and stress of drivers operating an automated vehicle in a real environment. The present study aimed to measure driver workload and stress during partially automated driving in real traffic. We recorded heart rate, heart rate variability, respiratory rate, and subjective responses of nine test drivers in the Tesla Model S with Autopilot. The participants, who were experienced with driver assistance systems but naïve to the Tesla, drove a 32 min motorway route back and forth while following a lead car in regular traffic. In one of the two drives, participants performed a heads-up detection task of bridges they went underneath. Averaged across the two drives, the participants’ mean self-reported overall workload score on the NASA Task Load Index was 19%. Moreover, the participants showed a reduction in heart rate and self-reported workload over time, suggesting that the participants became accustomed to the experiment and technology. The mean hit (i.e., pressing the button near a bridge) rate in the detection task was 88%. In conclusion, driving with the Tesla Autopilot on a motorway involved a low level of workload that decreased with time on task.
Effects of mental demands on situation awareness during platooning
A driving simulator study
Previous research shows that drivers of automated vehicles are likely to engage in visually demanding tasks, causing impaired situation awareness. How mental task demands affect situation awareness is less clear. In a driving simulator experiment, 33 participants completed three 40-min runs in an automated platoon, each run with a different level of mental task demands. Results showed that high task demands (i.e., performing a 2-back task, a working memory task in which participants had to recall a letter, presented two letters ago) induced high self-reported mental demands (71% on the NASA Task Load Index), while participants reported low levels of self-reported task engagement (measured with the Dundee Stress State Questionnaire) in all three task conditions in comparison to the pre-task measurement. Participants’ situation awareness, as measured using a think-out-loud protocol, was affected by mental task demands, with participants being more involved with the mental task itself (i.e., to remember letters) and less likely to comment on situational features (e.g., car, looking, overtaking) when task demands increased. Furthermore, our results shed light on temporal effects, with heart rate decreasing and self-constructed mental models of automation growing in complexity, with run number. It is concluded that mental task demands reduce situation awareness, and that not only type-of-task, but also time-on-task, should be considered in Human Factors research of automated driving.
Full platoon control in Truck Platooning
A Meaningful Human Control perspective
Truck platooning is a form of vehicle automation and cooperation that is leading the way for cooperative and automated vehicle implementation. However, much is still unknown about the effects and potential dangers of many situations in regard to cooperative control of these platoons. In this contribution, we discuss many of the challenges in regard to full platoon control, we give concepts that can answer some of the questions and make recommendations on how full platoon control should be considered by truck manufactures, ADS software developers and policy makers. A main concept that is applied is that of Meaningful Human Control (MHC). We furthermore consider driver 'reasons', both distal and proximal, to identify correct chains of MHC. We conclude that each part of a system should be responsive to the maximum amount of relevant reasons available and the availability of relevant reasons should be maximized to obtain sufficient MHC.