Text a Bit Longer or Drive Now? Resuming Driving after Texting in Conditionally Automated Cars

Overview

• This study examines different strategies drivers use when switching between driving and non-driving tasks during automated driving.
• Researchers conducted two driving simulator experiments to understand how cognitive demands, priorities, and takeover time budgets affect driver takeover strategies.
• The study also evaluated how different takeover strategies impact takeover performance.

Plain English Explanation

The researchers looked at the various ways drivers handle transitioning between driving and other tasks, such as texting, during automated driving. They wanted to see how the difficulty of the non-driving task, the driver's priorities, and the amount of time they have to take back control of the vehicle affect the strategies drivers use to regain control.

They also looked at how these different takeover strategies impact the driver's ability to safely resume control of the vehicle. The key findings were that the driver's choice of takeover strategy was influenced by the priority of the task and the time budget, but not by how cognitively demanding the non-driving task was. The takeover strategy itself didn't affect the quality of the takeover or the driver's engagement with the non-driving task, but it did influence when the driver resumed control.

Technical Explanation

The researchers conducted two driving simulator experiments to investigate how different factors influence driver takeover strategies during automated driving. They examined the effects of the cognitive demand of a non-driving related task (NDRT), the priority of the NDRT, and the available takeover time budget.

In the experiments, participants engaged in texting tasks with varying cognitive demands while driving in an automated mode. The researchers then measured how the different conditions affected the drivers' chosen takeover strategies, as well as the quality of their takeover performance.

The results showed that the driver's selected takeover strategy was influenced by the priority of the NDRT and the available time budget, but not by the cognitive demand of the task. The takeover strategy did not have any impact on the quality of the takeover or the driver's engagement with the NDRT, but it did affect the timing of when control was resumed.

Critical Analysis

The study provides useful insights into how drivers manage the transition between automated and manual driving, and the factors that influence their strategies. However, the research was conducted in a simulated environment, so the findings may not fully reflect real-world driving conditions.

Additionally, the study only examined a limited set of non-driving tasks (texting) and did not consider other types of secondary activities that drivers may engage in, such as using in-vehicle infotainment systems or interacting with passengers. Further research is needed to understand how a broader range of non-driving tasks and environmental factors may impact takeover strategies and performance.

Conclusion

This study sheds light on the complex interplay between driver attention, task prioritization, and takeover strategies during automated driving. The findings suggest that designers of automated driving systems should consider how to best support drivers in managing the transition between automated and manual control, taking into account the driver's priorities and available time.

By understanding the factors that influence driver takeover strategies, researchers and engineers can work towards developing more effective and safe automated driving systems that can seamlessly integrate with human drivers.