Comparing spatially static and dynamic vibrotactile take-over requests in the driver seat

Journal Article (2017)
Author(s)

Sebastiaan M. Petermeijer (Technische Universität München)

S. Cieler (Continental Automotive)

J. C F De Winter (TU Delft - Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Control)

Research Group
Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Control
Copyright
© 2017 S.M. Petermeijer, S. Cieler, J.C.F. de Winter
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.12.001
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2017
Language
English
Copyright
© 2017 S.M. Petermeijer, S. Cieler, J.C.F. de Winter
Research Group
Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Control
Issue number
Part A
Volume number
99
Pages (from-to)
218-227
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Vibrotactile stimuli can be effective as warning signals, but their effectiveness as directional take-over requests in automated driving is yet unknown. This study aimed to investigate the correct response rate, reaction times, and eye and head orientation for static versus dynamic directional take-over requests presented via vibrating motors in the driver seat. In a driving simulator, eighteen participants performed three sessions: 1) a session involving no driving (Baseline), 2) driving a highly automated car without additional task (HAD), and 3) driving a highly automated car while performing a mentally demanding task (N-Back). Per session, participants received four directional static (in the left or right part of the seat) and four dynamic (moving from one side towards the opposite left or right of the seat) take-over requests via two 6 × 4 motor matrices embedded in the seat back and bottom. In the Baseline condition, participants reported whether the cue was left or right, and in the HAD and N-Back conditions participants had to change lanes to the left or to the right according to the directional cue. The correct response rate was operationalized as the accuracy of the self-reported direction (Baseline session) and the accuracy of the lane change direction (HAD & N-Back sessions). The results showed that the correct response rate ranged between 94% for static patterns in the Baseline session and 74% for dynamic patterns in the N-Back session, although these effects were not statistically significant. Steering wheel touch and steering input reaction times were approximately 200 ms faster for static patterns than for dynamic ones. Eye tracking results revealed a correspondence between head/eye-gaze direction and lane change direction, and showed that head and eye-gaze movements where initiated faster for static vibrations than for dynamic ones. In conclusion, vibrotactile stimuli presented via the driver seat are effective as warnings, but their effectiveness as directional take-over requests may be limited. The present study may encourage further investigation into how to get drivers safely back into the loop.

Files

1_s2.0_S0001457516304390_main.... (pdf)
(pdf | 2.11 Mb)
- Embargo expired in 12-06-2017
License info not available