Publication

An adaptive driver support system: User experiences and driving performance in a simulator

Dijksterhuis, C., Stuiver, A., Mulder, B., Brookhuis, K. A. & de Waard, D., Oct-2012, In : Human Factors. 54, 5, p. 772-785 14 p.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

APA

Dijksterhuis, C., Stuiver, A., Mulder, B., Brookhuis, K. A., & de Waard, D. (2012). An adaptive driver support system: User experiences and driving performance in a simulator. Human Factors, 54(5), 772-785. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811430502

Author

Dijksterhuis, Chris ; Stuiver, Arjan ; Mulder, Ben ; Brookhuis, Karel A. ; de Waard, Dick. / An adaptive driver support system: User experiences and driving performance in a simulator. In: Human Factors. 2012 ; Vol. 54, No. 5. pp. 772-785.

Harvard

Dijksterhuis, C, Stuiver, A, Mulder, B, Brookhuis, KA & de Waard, D 2012, 'An adaptive driver support system: User experiences and driving performance in a simulator' Human Factors, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 772-785. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811430502

Standard

An adaptive driver support system: User experiences and driving performance in a simulator. / Dijksterhuis, Chris; Stuiver, Arjan; Mulder, Ben; Brookhuis, Karel A.; de Waard, Dick.

In: Human Factors, Vol. 54, No. 5, 10.2012, p. 772-785.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Vancouver

Dijksterhuis C, Stuiver A, Mulder B, Brookhuis KA, de Waard D. An adaptive driver support system: User experiences and driving performance in a simulator. Human Factors. 2012 Oct;54(5):772-785. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811430502


BibTeX

@article{d67b350652424ab9ab1b140e456a6da6,
title = "An adaptive driver support system: User experiences and driving performance in a simulator",
abstract = "Objective: The aim of this study was to test the implementation of an adaptive driver support system.Background: Providing support might not always be desirable from a safety perspective, as support may lead to problems related to a human operator being out of the loop. In contrast, adaptive support systems are designed to keep the operator in the loop as much as possible by providing support only when necessary.Method: A total of 31 experienced drivers were exposed to three modes of lane-keeping support: nonadaptive, adaptive, and no support. Support involved continuously updated lateral position feedback shown on a head-up display. When adaptive, support was triggered by performance-based indications of effort investment. Narrowing lane width and increasing density of oncoming traffic served to increase steering demand, and speed was fixed in all conditions to prevent any compensatory speed reactions.Results: Participants preferred the adaptive support mode mainly as a warning signal and tended to ignore nonadaptive feedback. Furthermore, driving behavior was improved by adaptive support in that participants drove more centrally, displayed less lateral variation and drove less outside the lane's delineation when support was in the adaptive mode compared with both the no-support mode and the nonadaptive support mode.Conclusion: A human operator is likely to use machine-triggered adaptations as an indication that thresholds have been passed, regardless of the support that is initiated. Therefore supporting only the sensory processing stage of the human information processing system with adaptive automation may not feasible.Application: These conclusions are relevant for designing adaptive driver support systems.",
keywords = "adaptive automation, head-up display, lateral control, mental workload, driving behavior, AUTOMATION, HUMANS, TASK, POSITION, MISUSE, DISUSE, ABUSE, STATE, HUDS",
author = "Chris Dijksterhuis and Arjan Stuiver and Ben Mulder and Brookhuis, {Karel A.} and {de Waard}, Dick",
year = "2012",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1177/0018720811430502",
language = "English",
volume = "54",
pages = "772--785",
journal = "Human Factors",
issn = "0018-7208",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - An adaptive driver support system: User experiences and driving performance in a simulator

AU - Dijksterhuis, Chris

AU - Stuiver, Arjan

AU - Mulder, Ben

AU - Brookhuis, Karel A.

AU - de Waard, Dick

PY - 2012/10

Y1 - 2012/10

N2 - Objective: The aim of this study was to test the implementation of an adaptive driver support system.Background: Providing support might not always be desirable from a safety perspective, as support may lead to problems related to a human operator being out of the loop. In contrast, adaptive support systems are designed to keep the operator in the loop as much as possible by providing support only when necessary.Method: A total of 31 experienced drivers were exposed to three modes of lane-keeping support: nonadaptive, adaptive, and no support. Support involved continuously updated lateral position feedback shown on a head-up display. When adaptive, support was triggered by performance-based indications of effort investment. Narrowing lane width and increasing density of oncoming traffic served to increase steering demand, and speed was fixed in all conditions to prevent any compensatory speed reactions.Results: Participants preferred the adaptive support mode mainly as a warning signal and tended to ignore nonadaptive feedback. Furthermore, driving behavior was improved by adaptive support in that participants drove more centrally, displayed less lateral variation and drove less outside the lane's delineation when support was in the adaptive mode compared with both the no-support mode and the nonadaptive support mode.Conclusion: A human operator is likely to use machine-triggered adaptations as an indication that thresholds have been passed, regardless of the support that is initiated. Therefore supporting only the sensory processing stage of the human information processing system with adaptive automation may not feasible.Application: These conclusions are relevant for designing adaptive driver support systems.

AB - Objective: The aim of this study was to test the implementation of an adaptive driver support system.Background: Providing support might not always be desirable from a safety perspective, as support may lead to problems related to a human operator being out of the loop. In contrast, adaptive support systems are designed to keep the operator in the loop as much as possible by providing support only when necessary.Method: A total of 31 experienced drivers were exposed to three modes of lane-keeping support: nonadaptive, adaptive, and no support. Support involved continuously updated lateral position feedback shown on a head-up display. When adaptive, support was triggered by performance-based indications of effort investment. Narrowing lane width and increasing density of oncoming traffic served to increase steering demand, and speed was fixed in all conditions to prevent any compensatory speed reactions.Results: Participants preferred the adaptive support mode mainly as a warning signal and tended to ignore nonadaptive feedback. Furthermore, driving behavior was improved by adaptive support in that participants drove more centrally, displayed less lateral variation and drove less outside the lane's delineation when support was in the adaptive mode compared with both the no-support mode and the nonadaptive support mode.Conclusion: A human operator is likely to use machine-triggered adaptations as an indication that thresholds have been passed, regardless of the support that is initiated. Therefore supporting only the sensory processing stage of the human information processing system with adaptive automation may not feasible.Application: These conclusions are relevant for designing adaptive driver support systems.

KW - adaptive automation

KW - head-up display

KW - lateral control

KW - mental workload

KW - driving behavior

KW - AUTOMATION

KW - HUMANS

KW - TASK

KW - POSITION

KW - MISUSE

KW - DISUSE

KW - ABUSE

KW - STATE

KW - HUDS

U2 - 10.1177/0018720811430502

DO - 10.1177/0018720811430502

M3 - Article

VL - 54

SP - 772

EP - 785

JO - Human Factors

JF - Human Factors

SN - 0018-7208

IS - 5

ER -

ID: 5688549