A Motion for No Motion

Abstract

Ensuring safety remains one of the biggest challenges for the widespread adoption of automated vehicles (AVs). Remote operation of AVs is a promising approach to address this, allowing remote operators to intervene when AVs encounter edge cases. However, remote operators are out-of-the-loop from the conventional driver in vehicle environment interaction, impacting their situation awareness and ability to safely control or assist the vehicle. In the scenario of remote driving, this is more evident since multimodal feedback is required to replicate the conventional driver-vehicle environment-interaction. In addition to visual and auditory modalities, motion feedback has been proposed as a way to bridge the gap between remote driving and in-vehicle driving. However, since motion feedback is cost-intensive, it might hinder rapid upscaling of remote driving systems. Thus, this study evaluated whether motion feedback adds value to driving performance and experience of the remote operator in low-velocity scenarios. Driving performance and experience were assessed and compared using objective and subjective metrics in three conditions (in-vehicle driving, and remote driving with and without motion feedback). The findings show that in remote driving, motion feedback fails to provide significant improvements. When compared to in-vehicle driving, remote driving performance and experience remain significantly worse. This suggests that motion feedback, in its current form, is redundant in low-velocity scenarios and that a simplified Remote Driving Station (RDS) may be sufficient in these scenarios. Future work should optimize simplified RDS designs, enhance feedback and human-machine interfaces and explore different driving scenarios for safe and efficient remote driving.