Influences on Driving Style Preferences in Automated Driving: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 3 by Camila Xu and Version 5 by Laurin Vasile.

As automated driving is a rapidly evolving technologtechnology continues to advance, the question of how users prefer to be driven in their new, more passive role is becoming increasingly relevant. In this paper, a real-world study on a German motorway with the aim to revolutionize transportation by eliminating the need for human42 participants was conducted to analyze driving style preferences for conditional automated driving, taking the participants’ personal driving style into account. In the first part, participants’ personal driving style (PDS) was recorded during a manual drivers. The predicted potentials of in the first half on a given route. For the second half, participants were asked to demonstrate their desired driving style (DDS) for conditional automated driving include increased . In the second part, participants were driven on the same route in a defensive automated vehicle (AV) while rating driving comfort and safety, traffic flow optimization, reduced emissions, and enhanced mobility for people with disabilities or limited access to transportation. With. Subsequently, the relationship between driving style differences and ratings was analyzed. Furthermore, a comparison between PDS and DDS was performed. The results show that very defensive to moderate drivers perceived the AV’s driving style, being similar to their own, as equally safe but significantly more comfortable than moderate to very aggressive drivers. No influence of driving style differences was found on the increase in trust. However, a significant increase in trust after experiencing an automated driving, humans change their role from an active driver to that of a passenger, raisvehicle has been observed. Furthermore, the rated system characteristics of anthropomorphism, safety, and overall driving strategy had a significant influence on driving style preferences for AVs. This study makes an important contribution to answering the question of how users preferwant to be driven in the future when they are no longer conditional automated driving themselves.

  • autonomous driving
  • driving style
  • trust
  • human-like
  • driving strategy

1. Introduction

Automated driving is a rapidly evolving technology with the aim to revolutionize transportation by eliminating the need for human drivers. The predicted potentials of automated driving include increased driving comfort and safety, traffic flow optimization, reduced emissions, and enhanced mobility for people with disabilities or limited access to transportation. A common framework to classify different levels of automation is the SAE standard J3016 [1]. The framework categorizes the degree of automation into six levels, starting with Level 0, representing manual driving with no active assistance systems, up to fully automated driving without the need for a driver in Level 5. The introduction of active driver assistance systems up to Level 2 in the past decades has continuously increased the safety of passengers in critical driving situations [2]. Although Level 2 systems are already actively controlling the longitudinal and lateral vehicle guidance simultaneously, the driver is still obligated to monitor the system. The next step towards fully automated driving is, therefore, Level 3 (L3), also described as conditionally automated driving (CAD). L3 is the first level in which the driver is not required to continuously monitor the automated system under specific conditions, enabling users to spend their time with non-driving-related activities.
With the shift of responsibility to the automated system, the role of the driver also changes to that of a passenger [3][4], raising the question of how users want to be driven when they are no longer in control of the driving task. Do users prefer their own or a different driving style in automated driving? Only a few studies have started to investigate this question in recent years with the majority using driving simulators. A common approach for investigating user preferences is to let users experience different driving styles in comparison. The driving styles are either predefined or a prerecording of the user’s own driving style. Refs. [5][6] found that both defensive and aggressive drivers prefer a defensive style. Ref. [7] comes to the same conclusion for defensive drivers, but found no tendency for aggressive drivers. Refs. [8][9] analyzed driving style preferences in relation to participants’ prerecorded own driving style without considering driver types. Whereas participants preferred their own driving style in [8], a more defensive style compared to participants’ personal driving style was preferred in [9] for all driving situations except for lane change maneuvers, for which a more aggressive style was preferred. Refs. [3][10][11] analyzed driving style preferences for lane changes on motorways. Without considering the driver type or recordings of participants’ driving styles, all studies found that participants preferred a defensive driving style.
The presented automated driving styles differ in characteristics of driving dynamics and driving strategies with regard to interaction with other road users and the environment. Under the assumption that drivers will expect their AV to drive like a human, many research papers focus on analyzing [12][13][14] and learning human-like driving behavior for AVs [15][16][17][18][19]. The goal of human-like driving behavior is to include human driving conventions to increase ride comfort and safety as well as predictability for other road users [20]. Human-like features in AVs, including driving behavior, are also studied in many papers under the term anthropomorphism [21][22].
Whether a driving style is preferred for automated driving is often determined by assessments of comfort, safety, and trust. Although definitions for comfort and safety in the field of automated driving can differ depending on the research question, both can be measured by the absence of discomfort and danger or on one dimension from a negative to positive value range representing different degrees of comfort or discomfort. In [23], trust in automated systems is defined as “an attitude that a user is willing to be vulnerable to an action from an automated system”. Trust is seen as a key factor in the acceptance and usage of automated driving technology. Therefore, a considerable amount of literature focuses on understanding trust in the context of automated driving and how it can be increased to meet user expectations [7][24][25][26].

2. Driving Comfort

Driving comfort is an essential component to fulfill customer expectations [27][28]. However, until today, there is no unique definition of comfort [29]. Whereas some studies see comfort and discomfort as two end poles on a single dimension [30][31], others interpret both as independent constructs that can be experienced simultaneously [32][33]. Although no universal definition of comfort exists, Ref. [33] has summarized three aspects of comfort that are commonly shared among a variety of definitions: (1) comfort is subjective and individual; (2) both internal and external factors have an impact on individually experienced comfort; (3) comfort is experienced as a reaction to the environment. In addition to the absence of a common definition, measuring experienced comfort poses another significant challenge in comfort-related research. In the past, different methods have been introduced to measure comfort. In [34][35], comfort is measured via physiological measures such as heart rate, electrodermal activity, galvanic skin response, and others, whereas [36][37] measures the discomfort via a hand controller. The usage of questionnaires is another approach that is often taken in various studies to measure comfort [38][39].

3. Driving Style

In the context of conditional automated driving, the driving style and strategy will become increasingly important for experienced comfort and safety as the driver will have limited predictability of the AV’s trajectory and control over the vehicle guidance [10][36][40]. This has also been described as a “loss of controllability” [4]. So far, no universal definition of driving style exists [41]. However, Ref. [41] has summarized three aspects of a driving style that are commonly shared among various definitions: (1) driving styles are relatively stable and habitual; (2) driving styles differ across groups and individuals; (3) driving styles reflect conscious decisions made by the driver. A common approach to describe a driving style is to use objective parameters such as vehicle kinematics and environment context. In the past, a variety of parameter representations have been introduced, such as time series data [3][42], statistical characteristics [7][43][44], or latent variables, representing a dimensionless combination of different parameter types [9][45][46]. In order to differentiate between various driving styles, classification techniques such as manual or data-driven methods are commonly applied. These techniques typically involve analyzing value ranges or data patterns, which are then followed by subjective categorization using terms such as “defensive”, “moderate”, or “aggressive” [41]. Driving styles can also be differentiated based on their strategies for direct vehicle control, interaction with other traffic participants, or behavior in specific environments, as discussed in various studies [47]. For instance, different deceleration profiles for approaching a slower lead vehicle have been presented as examples of different strategies used for vehicle control [10][36]. In another study, the behavior of an autonomous vehicle affected whether a cut-in vehicle changed lanes in front of or behind the autonomous vehicle [7] as an example of different strategies for cooperation. In the case of specific environments, Ref. [21] presented different approaches for passing through an intersection. One strategy involves cautious, human-like behavior, whereas the other involves machine-like behavior that conveys a sense of prior knowledge about the environment and other oncoming road users. Many studies suggest that human-like driving behavior will increase user trust, acceptance, predictability, and ride comfort and safety [18][22][48]. Human-like driving can be learned from large naturalistic data sets [13][49], expert demonstration [14][16], or random subject collectives [50]. A slightly different approach to learning a driving style was taken by [15], specifically asking participants to demonstrate their desired driving style for an automated vehicle through manual driving instead of recording their everyday driving style. The aim of human-like driving styles is to incorporate common driving conventions of human drivers, including in-lane positioning in curves [51], distance regulation for car-following [17], crossing behavior for intersections [52], and others. The use of virtual agents in AVs with human-like features such as voice and appearance [22][53][54][55] is an additional approach to create an even stronger impression of a human-like automated vehicle, which is also referred to as anthropomorphism in the literature. Preferences for automated driving have been analyzed for different maneuvers such as lane changes [8][10][11][36][43], car-following [56][57][58][59], decelerating to a slower lead vehicle [10][36], or across different maneuvers and scenarios [6][7][25][26]. A common approach by previous studies in this context is to let users experience a predefined driving style in comparison with other driving styles or their own prerecorded driving style, using driving simulators. A Wizard-of-Oz setup was used by [6][36]. The amount of studies investigating driving style preferences for automated driving is considered small. In addition, studies differ in terms of driving environments such as urban, rural, or motorways and whether preferences are evaluated in relation to [5][6][7][8][9] or independently of participants’ personal driving style [10][11][36][43], making it yet difficult to derive a clear picture of how users want to be driven in an automated vehicle. With regard to age-related differences, Refs. [3][60][61] have investigated how age affects the experience of different automated driving styles for various maneuvers on rural and motorway roads. All studies involved participants experiencing their own driving style and up to two predefined automated driving styles. Ref. [3] found that both younger and older participants preferred the driving style of a younger driver, whereas younger drivers in [60] preferred a defensive driving style, showing the greatest rejection of their own driving style in terms of safety and comfort. Results of [61] show that older drivers prefer their own style when compared to a more aggressive automated driving style.

4. Trust

Trust has proven to be a critical factor for the acceptance of automated vehicles [24][62][63]. Without appropriate levels of trust, users may not feel comfortable using and relying on driverless technology, preventing them from fully taking advantage of its potential benefits [64][65][66]. Similar to the terms comfort and driving style, various definitions exist for trust as it is seen as a multidimensional concept. However, Ref. [62] has summarized three aspects that are commonly shared among a variety of definitions: (1) trust is given by a truster to a trustee with something at stake; (2) in order for the trustee to perform the task, an incentive must exist. In the case of technology, the designer’s intended use of the system serves as the primary incentive for the trustee; (3) trust involves the possibility of the trustee failing to perform the task, leading to uncertainty and risk. Trust is commonly assessed using questionnaires [7][10][21]. Ref. [26], on the other hand, measured trust via acceleration and brake pedal inputs by the user, expressing their dissatisfaction with the driving style. Various studies investigated which factors affect users’ trust in an automated vehicle and how it can be increased. References [67][68][69] focused on how information displayed to the driver can help to increase trust, whereas [7][10][21][26][70] analyzed the influence of driving styles on users’ trust, all coming to different conclusions. Whereas the simulator study results of [7][26] suggest that automated driving styles that align with the user’s personal driving style increase trust, no influence of driving style on trust was found in [10][21]. However, it has been observed that trust can increase over time with repeated experience of an AV [21][62][71][72].

References

  1. SAE International. SAE J3016: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2021.
  2. Schramm, D.; Schweig, S. Fahrerassistenzsysteme—Ein Überblick. In Altersgerechte Fahrerassistenzsysteme: Technische, Psychologische und Betriebswirtschaftliche Aspekte; Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2020; pp. 39–53.
  3. Hartwich, F.; Beggiato, M.; Dettman, A.; Krems, J. Drive me comfortable—Customized automated driving styles for younger and older drivers. In Proceedings of the 8. VDI-Tagung “Der Fahrer im 21. Jahrhundert”, Braunschweig, Germany, 10–11 November 2015.
  4. Elbanhawi, M.; Simic, M.; Jazar, R. In the passenger seat: Investigating ride comfort measures in autonomous cars. IEEE Intell. Transp. Syst. Mag. 2015, 7, 4–17.
  5. Peng, C.; Merat, N.; Romano, R.; Hajiseyedjavadi, F.; Paschalidis, E.; Wei, C.; Radhakrishnan, V.; Solernou, A.; Forster, D.; Boer, E. Drivers’ Evaluation of Different Automated Driving Styles: Is It both Comfortable and Natural? Hum. Factors, 2022; online first.
  6. Yusof, N.M.; Karjanto, J.; Terken, J.; Delbressine, F.; Hassan, M.Z.; Rauterberg, M. The Exploration of Autonomous Vehicle Driving Styles. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 24–26 October 2016; Green, P., Boll, S., Gabbard, J., Osswald, S., Burnett, G., Borojeni, S.S., Löcken, A., Pradhan, A., Eds.; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 245–252.
  7. Ma, Z.; Zhang, Y. Drivers trust, acceptance, and takeover behaviors in fully automated vehicles: Effects of automated driving styles and driver’s driving styles. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2021, 159, 106238.
  8. Griesche, S.; Nicolay, E.; Assmann, D.; Dotzauer, M.; Käthner, D. Should my car drive as I do? What kind of driving style do drivers prefer for the design of automated driving functions. In Proceedings of the 17th Braunschweiger Symposium AAET, Braunschweig, Germany, 10–11 February 2016.
  9. Basu, C.; Yang, Q.; Hungerman, D.; Singhal, M.; Dragan, A.D. Do You Want Your Autonomous Car To Drive Like You? In Proceedings of the 2017 12th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Vienna, Austria, 6–9 March 2017; pp. 417–425.
  10. Bellem, H.; Thiel, B.; Schrauf, M.; Krems, J.F. Comfort in automated driving: An analysis of preferences for different automated driving styles and their dependence on personality traits. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2018, 55, 90–100.
  11. Sourelli, A.M.; Welsh, R.; Thomas, P. User preferences, driving context or manoeuvre characteristics? Exploring parameters affecting the acceptability of automated overtaking. Appl. Ergon. 2023, 109, 103959.
  12. Vasile, L.; Seitz, B.; Däsch, C.; Schramm, D. Untersuchung charakteristischer Parameter des Spurfolgeverhaltens zur Generierung einer Referenz für hochautomatisiertes Fahren. In Proceedings of the VDI Mechatronik 2021, Digitale Konferenz, Deutschland, online, 23–25 March 2021; pp. 152–157.
  13. Ivanco, A. Fleet analysis of headway distance for autonomous driving. J. Saf. Res. 2017, 63, 145–148.
  14. Liu, T.; Selpi. Comparison of Car-Following Behavior in Terms of Safety Indicators Between China and Sweden. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2020, 21, 3696–3705.
  15. Kuderer, M.; Gulati, S.; Burgard, W. Learning driving styles for autonomous vehicles from demonstration. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Seattle, DC, USA, 26–30 May 2015; pp. 2641–2646.
  16. Sama, K.; Morales, Y.; Liu, H.; Akai, N.; Carballo, A.; Takeuchi, E.; Takeda, K. Extracting Human-Like Driving Behaviors From Expert Driver Data Using Deep Learning. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2020, 69, 9315–9329.
  17. Zhu, M.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y. Human-like autonomous car-following model with deep reinforcement learning. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2018, 97, 348–368.
  18. Vasile, L.; Divakar, K.; Schramm, D. Deep-Learning basierte Verhaltensprädiktion rückwärtiger Verkehrsteilnehmer für hochautomatisierte Spurwechsel. In Transforming Mobility—What Next? Technische und betriebswirtschaftliche Aspekte; Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2022; pp. 243–263.
  19. Wirthmüller, F.; Schlechtriemen, J.; Hipp, J.; Reichert, M. Teaching Vehicles to Anticipate: A Systematic Study on Probabilistic Behavior Prediction Using Large Data Sets. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2021, 22, 7129–7144.
  20. Sun, R.; Hu, S.; Zhao, H.; Moze, M.; Aioun, F.; Guillemard, F. Human-like Highway Trajectory Modeling based on Inverse Reinforcement Learning. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), Auckland, New Zealand, 27–30 October 2019; pp. 1482–1489.
  21. Oliveira, L.; Proctor, K.; Burns, C.G.; Birrell, S. Driving Style: How Should an Automated Vehicle Behave? Information 2019, 10, 219.
  22. Waytz, A.; Heafner, J.; Epley, N. The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2014, 52, 113–117.
  23. Körber, M.; Baseler, E.; Bengler, K. Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving. Appl. Ergon. 2018, 66, 18–31.
  24. Molnar, L.J.; Ryan, L.H.; Pradhan, A.K.; Eby, D.W.; St. Louis, R.M.; Zakrajsek, J.S. Understanding trust and acceptance of automated vehicles: An exploratory simulator study of transfer of control between automated and manual driving. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2018, 58, 319–328.
  25. Natarajan, M.; Akash, K.; Misu, T. Toward Adaptive Driving Styles for Automated Driving with Users’ Trust and Preferences. In Proceedings of the 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan, 7–10 March 2022; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2022; pp. 940–944.
  26. Lee, J.D.; Liu, S.Y.; Domeyer, J.; DinparastDjadid, A. Assessing Drivers’ Trust of Automated Vehicle Driving Styles With a Two-Part Mixed Model of Intervention Tendency and Magnitude. Hum. Factors 2021, 63, 197–209.
  27. Siebert, F.W.; Oehl, M.; Höger, R.; Pfister, H.R. Discomfort in Automated Driving—The Disco-Scale. In Proceedings of the HCI International 2013—Posters’ Extended Abstracts, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 21–26 July 2013; Stephanidis, C., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 337–341.
  28. Engeln, A.; Vratil, B. Fahrkomfort und Fahrgenuss durch den Einsatz von Fahrerassistenzsystemen. In Fortschritte der Verkehrspsychologie: Beiträge vom 45. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie; VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2008; pp. 275–288.
  29. Bubb, H.; Vollrath, M.; Reinprecht, K.; Mayer, E.; Körber, M. Der Mensch als Fahrer. In Automobilergonomie; Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2015; pp. 67–162.
  30. Vergara, M.; Page, A. System to measure the use of the backrest in sitting-posture office tasks. Appl. Ergon. 2000, 31, 247–254.
  31. Hertzberg, H.T.E. The Human Buttocks in Sitting: Pressures, Patterns, and Palliatives. In Proceedings of the 1972 Automotive Engineering Congress and Exposition, Feb 1972; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 1972.
  32. Zhang, L.; Helander, M.G.; Drury, C.G. Identifying Factors of Comfort and Discomfort in Sitting. Hum. Factors 1996, 38, 377–389.
  33. De Looze, M.P.; Kuijt-Evers, L.F.M.; Van Dieën, J. Sitting comfort and discomfort and the relationships with objective measures. Ergonomics 2003, 46, 985–997.
  34. Dillen, N.; Ilievski, M.; Law, E.; Nacke, L.E.; Czarnecki, K.; Schneider, O. Keep Calm and Ride Along: Passenger Comfort and Anxiety as Physiological Responses to Autonomous Driving Styles. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20), Honolulu, HI, USA, 25–30 April 2020; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1–13.
  35. Beggiato, M.; Hartwich, F.; Krems, J. Physiological correlates of discomfort in automated driving. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2019, 66, 445–458.
  36. Festner, M. Objektivierte Bewertung des Fahrstils auf Basis der Komfortwahrnehmung bei hochautomatisiertem Fahren in Abhängigkeit fahrfremder Tätigkeiten. Ph.D. Thesis, Universität Duisburg-Essen—University of Duisburg-Essen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, 2019.
  37. Telpaz, A.; Baltaxe, M.; Hecht, R.M.; Cohen-Lazry, G.; Degani, A.; Kamhi, G. An Approach for Measurement of Passenger Comfort: Real-Time Classification based on In-Cabin and Exterior Data. In Proceedings of the 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Maui, HI, USA, 4–7 November 2018; pp. 223–229.
  38. Schockenhoff, F.; Nehse, H.; Lienkamp, M. Maneuver-Based Objectification of User Comfort Affecting Aspects of Driving Style of Autonomous Vehicle Concepts. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3946.
  39. Nagahama, A.; Saito, T.; Wada, T.; Sonoda, K. Comfort and Usability of Automated Driving Systems for Collision Avoidance by Learning Drivers’ Preference at an Opportune Time. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC), Bari, Italy, 6–9 October 2019; pp. 4269–4274.
  40. Golding, J.F.; Gresty, M.A. Motion sickness. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 2005, 18, 29–34.
  41. Sagberg, F.; Selpi; Piccinini, G.F.B.; Engström, J. A Review of Research on Driving Styles and Road Safety. Hum. Factors 2015, 57, 1248–1275.
  42. Moser, U.; Harmening, N.; Schramm, D. A new method for the objective assessment of ADAS based on multivariate time series classification. In Proceedings of the 19. Internationales Stuttgarter Symposium; Bargende, M., Reuss, H.C., Wagner, A., Wiedemann, J., Eds.; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2019; pp. 636–651.
  43. Roßner, P.; Bullinger, A.C. How Do You Want to be Driven? Investigation of Different Highly-Automated Driving Styles on a Highway Scenario. In Advances in Human Factors of Transportation; Stanton, N., Ed.; Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerlands, 2020; Volume 964, pp. 36–43.
  44. Otto, H.; Schönenberg, T.; Krems, J.F.; Schrauf, M. Objective metrics of comfort: Developing a driving style for highly automated vehicles. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2016, 41, 45–54.
  45. Griesche, S.; Krähling, M.; Käthner, D. CONFORM—A visualization tool and method to classify driving styles in context of highly automated driving. In Proceedings of the 30. VDI/VW Gemeinschatstagung Fahrerassistens und Integrierte Sicherheit, Wolsburg, Germany, 12–13 October 2014.
  46. Tejada, A.; Manders, J.; Snijders, R.; Paardekooper, J.P.; de Hair-Buijssen, S. Towards a Characterization of Safe Driving Behavior for Automated Vehicles Based on Models of “Typical” Human Driving Behavior. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Rhodes, Greece, 20–23 September 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 1–6.
  47. Zhao, C.; Li, L.; Pei, X.; Li, Z.; Wang, F.Y.; Wu, X. A comparative study of state-of-the-art driving strategies for autonomous vehicles. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2021, 150, 105937.
  48. Dai, Q.; Shen, D.; Wang, J.; Huang, S.; Filev, D. Calibration of human driving behavior and preference using vehicle trajectory data. Transp. Res. Part Emerg. Technol. 2022, 145, 103916.
  49. Krajewski, R.; Bock, J.; Kloeker, L.; Eckstein, L. The highD Dataset: A Drone Dataset of Naturalistic Vehicle Trajectories on German Highways for Validation of Highly Automated Driving Systems. In Proceedings of the 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Maui, HI, USA, 4–7 November 2018; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 2118–2125.
  50. Chen, Y.; Li, G.; Li, S.; Wang, W.; Li, S.E.; Cheng, B. Exploring Behavioral Patterns of Lane Change Maneuvers for Human-like Autonomous Driving. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2022, 23, 14322–14335.
  51. Li, A.; Jiang, H.; Li, Z.; Zhou, J.; Zhou, X. Human-Like Trajectory Planning on Curved Road: Learning From Human Drivers. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2020, 21, 3388–3397.
  52. de Beaucorps, P.; Streubel, T.; Verroust-Blondet, A.; Nashashibi, F.; Bradai, B.; Resende, P. Decision-making for automated vehicles at intersections adapting human-like behavior. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 11–14 June 2017; pp. 212–217.
  53. Musabini, A.; Bozbayir, E.; Marcasuzaa, H.; Ramírez, O.A.I. Park4U Mate: Context-Aware Digital Assistant for Personalized Autonomous Parking. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Nagoya, Japan, 11–17 July 2021; pp. 724–731.
  54. Ruijten, P.A.M.; Terken, J.M.B.; Chandramouli, S.N. Enhancing Trust in Autonomous Vehicles through Intelligent User Interfaces That Mimic Human Behavior. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2018, 2, 62.
  55. Aremyr, E.; Jönsson, M.; Strömberg, H. Anthropomorphism: An Investigation of Its Effect on Trust in Human-Machine Interfaces for Highly Automated Vehicles. In Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018), Florence, Italy, 26–30 August 2018; Bagnara, S., Tartaglia, R., Albolino, S., Alexander, T., Fujita, Y., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerlands, 2019; pp. 343–352.
  56. Siebert, F.W.; Wallis, F.L. How speed and visibility influence preferred headway distances in highly automated driving. Transp. Res. Part Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2019, 64, 485–494.
  57. Siebert, F.W.; Oehl, M.; Bersch, F.; Pfister, H.R. The exact determination of subjective risk and comfort thresholds in car following. Transp. Res. Part Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2017, 46, 1–13.
  58. Siebert, F.W.; Oehl, M.; Pfister, H.R. The influence of time headway on subjective driver states in adaptive cruise control. Transp. Res. Part Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2014, 25, 65–73.
  59. De Vos, A.P.; Theeuwes, J.; Hoekstra, W.; Coëmet, M.J. Behavioral Aspects of Automatic Vehicle Guidance: Relationship Between Headway and Driver Comfort. Transp. Res. Rec. 1997, 1573, 17–22.
  60. Beggiato, M.; Hartwich, F.; Roßner, P.; Dettmann, A.; Enhuber, S.; Pech, T.; Gesmann-Nuissl, D.; Mößner, K.; Bullinger, A.C.; Krems, J. KomfoPilot—Comfortable Automated Driving. In Smart Automotive Mobility; Meixner, G., Ed.; Human–Computer Interaction Series; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerlands, 2020; pp. 71–154.
  61. Haghzare, S.; Campos, J.L.; Bak, K.; Mihailidis, A. Older adults’ acceptance of fully automated vehicles: Effects of exposure, driving style, age, and driving conditions. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2021, 150, 105919.
  62. Hoff, K.; Bashir, M. Trust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 2015, 57, 407–434.
  63. Choi, J.K.; Ji, Y.G. Investigating the Importance of Trust on Adopting an Autonomous Vehicle. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2015, 31, 692–702.
  64. Schoettle, B.; Sivak, M. A Survey of Public Opinion about Autonomous and Self-Driving Vehicles in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia. In Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 12–16 January 2014.
  65. Kyriakidis, M.; Happee, R.; de Winter, J. Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transp. Res. Part F-Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2015, 32, 127–140.
  66. Haboucha, C.J.; Ishaq, R.; Shiftan, Y. User preferences regarding autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2017, 78, 37–49.
  67. Helldin, T.; Falkman, G.; Riveiro, M.; Davidsson, S. Presenting system uncertainty in automotive UIs for supporting trust calibration in autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 28–30 October 2013.
  68. Korber, M.; Prasch, L.; Bengler, K. Why Do I Have to Drive Now? Post Hoc Explanations of Takeover Requests. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 2018, 60, 305–323.
  69. McGuirl, J.; Sarter, N. Supporting Trust Calibration and the Effective Use of Decision Aids by Presenting Dynamic System Confidence Information. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 2006, 48, 656–665.
  70. Lu, Y.; Yi, B.; Song, X.; Zhao, S.; Wang, J.; Cao, H. Can we adapt to highly automated vehicles as passengers? The mediating effect of trust and situational awareness on role adaption moderated by automated driving style. Transp. Res. Part Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2022, 90, 269–286.
  71. Sibi, S.; Balters, S.; Mok, B.; Steinert, M.; Ju, W. Assessing Driver Cortical Activity under Varying Levels of Automation with Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Los Angeles, CA, USA, 11–14 June 2017; pp. 1509–1516.
  72. Gustavsson, P.; Victor, T.; Johansson, J.; Tivesten, E.; Johansson Malmlöf, R.; Ljung Aust, M. What were they thinking? Subjective experiences associated with automation expectation mismatch. In Proceedings of the 6th Driver Distraction and Inattention Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 15–17 October 2018; pp. 64–75.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback