Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
How Do Drivers Respond to Silent Automation Failures?: Driving Simulator Study and Comparison of Computational Driver Braking Models.
Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences in the Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1885-6360
Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences in the Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0926-1517
Volvo Group Trucks Technology, Sweden.
Center for Truck and Bus Safety, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, USA.
Show others and affiliations
2020 (English)In: Human Factors, ISSN 0018-7208, E-ISSN 1547-8181, Vol. 62, no 7, p. 1212-1229Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to describe and test novel computational driver models, predicting drivers' brake reaction times (BRTs) to different levels of lead vehicle braking, during driving with cruise control (CC) and during silent failures of adaptive cruise control (ACC).

BACKGROUND: Validated computational models predicting BRTs to silent failures of automation are lacking but are important for assessing the safety benefits of automated driving.

METHOD: Two alternative models of driver response to silent ACC failures are proposed: a looming prediction model, assuming that drivers embody a generative model of ACC, and a lower gain model, assuming that drivers' arousal decreases due to monitoring of the automated system. Predictions of BRTs issued by the models were tested using a driving simulator study.; RESULTS: The driving simulator study confirmed the predictions of the models: (a) BRTs were significantly shorter with an increase in kinematic criticality, both during driving with CC and during driving with ACC; (b) BRTs were significantly delayed when driving with ACC compared with driving with CC. However, the predicted BRTs were longer than the ones observed, entailing a fitting of the models to the data from the study.

CONCLUSION: Both the looming prediction model and the lower gain model predict well the BRTs for the ACC driving condition. However, the looming prediction model has the advantage of being able to predict average BRTs using the exact same parameters as the model fitted to the CC driving data.

APPLICATION: Knowledge resulting from this research can be helpful for assessing the safety benefits of automated driving.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Sage Publications, 2020. Vol. 62, no 7, p. 1212-1229
National Category
Vehicle and Aerospace Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:vti:diva-14968DOI: 10.1177/0018720819875347ISI: 31590570Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85074025445OAI: oai:DiVA.org:vti-14968DiVA, id: diva2:1452961
Available from: 2020-07-08 Created: 2020-07-08 Last updated: 2025-02-14Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Sandin, Jesper

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Bianchi Piccinini, GiulioLehtonen, EskoAlbers, DeikeSandin, Jesper
By organisation
Driver and vehicle
In the same journal
Human Factors
Vehicle and Aerospace Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 117 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf