Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 99 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 43 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 28 tok/s
GPT-5 High 35 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 94 tok/s
GPT OSS 120B 476 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 190 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

An Eye Gaze Heatmap Analysis of Uncertainty Head-Up Display Designs for Conditional Automated Driving (2402.17751v1)

Published 27 Feb 2024 in cs.HC

Abstract: This paper reports results from a high-fidelity driving simulator study (N=215) about a head-up display (HUD) that conveys a conditional automated vehicle's dynamic "uncertainty" about the current situation while fallback drivers watch entertaining videos. We compared (between-group) three design interventions: display (a bar visualisation of uncertainty close to the video), interruption (interrupting the video during uncertain situations), and combination (a combination of both), against a baseline (video-only). We visualised eye-tracking data to conduct a heatmap analysis of the four groups' gaze behaviour over time. We found interruptions initiated a phase during which participants interleaved their attention between monitoring and entertainment. This improved monitoring behaviour was more pronounced in combination compared to interruption, suggesting pre-warning interruptions have positive effects. The same addition had negative effects without interruptions (comparing baseline & display). Intermittent interruptions may have safety benefits over placing additional peripheral displays without compromising usability.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (62)
  1. A Survey of Attention Management Systems in Ubiquitous Computing Environments. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 2, 2 (July 2018), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3214261
  2. Improving the Driver–Automation Interaction: An Approach Using Automation Uncertainty. Human factors 55, 6 (Dec. 2013), 1130–1141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720813482327
  3. How Do Interruptions Affect Productivity? In Rethinking Productivity in Software Engineering, Caitlin Sadowski and Thomas Zimmermann (Eds.). Apress, Berkeley, CA, 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-4221-6_9
  4. Mica R Endsley. 2015. Situation Awareness Misconceptions and Misunderstandings. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 9, 1 (March 2015), 4–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343415572631
  5. Mica R Endsley. 2016. Designing for Situation Awareness: An Approach to User-Centered Design, Second Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton. https://doi.org/10.1201/b11371
  6. Mica R Endsley. 2017. Autonomous Driving Systems: A Preliminary Naturalistic Study of the Tesla Model S. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 11, 3 (Sept. 2017), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343417695197
  7. Mica R. Endsley. 2019. Situation Awareness in Future Autonomous Vehicles: Beware of the Unexpected. In Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018), Sebastiano Bagnara, Riccardo Tartaglia, Sara Albolino, Thomas Alexander, and Yushi Fujita (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 303–309.
  8. Richard Finger and Ann M Bisantz. 2002. Utilizing graphical formats to convey uncertainty in a decision-making task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 3, 1 (Jan. 2002), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220110110324
  9. Kraig Finstad. 2010. Response interpolation and scale sensitivity: Evidence against 5-point scales. Journal of usability studies 5, 3 (2010), 104–110. https://uxpajournal.org/en/response-interpolation-and-scale-sensitivity-evidence-against-5-point-scales/
  10. Wilson S. Geisler and Jeffrey S. Perry. 1998. Real-time foveated multiresolution system for low-bandwidth video communication. In Human Vision and Electronic Imaging III, Bernice E. Rogowitz and Thrasyvoulos N. Pappas (Eds.), Vol. 3299. International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, San Jose, United States, 294 – 305. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.320120
  11. A human factors perspective on how to keep SAE Level 3 conditional automated driving safe. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 22 (Nov. 2023), 100959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100959
  12. Eye-Gaze Analysis of HUD Interventions for Conditional Automation to Increase Situation Awareness. In 13th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 210–212. https://doi.org/10.1145/3473682.3481872
  13. Self-Interruptions of Non-Driving Related Tasks in Automated Vehicles: Mobile vs Head-Up Display. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376751
  14. A questionnaire for the assessment of the multiple dimensions of motion sickness. Aviation, space, and environmental medicine 72, 2 (Feb. 2001), 115–119. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11211039
  15. “Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop? Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society … Annual Meeting Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Meeting 57, 1 (Sept. 2013), 1938–1942. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213571433
  16. Presenting Information on the Driver’s Demand on a Head-Up Display. In Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2017, Regina Bernhaupt, Girish Dalvi, Anirudha Joshi, Devanuj K. Balkrishan, Jacki O’Neill, and Marco Winckler (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 245–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67684-5_15
  17. On the future of transportation in an era of automated and autonomous vehicles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 116, 16 (April 2019), 7684–7691. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805770115
  18. Presenting system uncertainty in automotive UIs for supporting trust calibration in autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (AutomotiveUI ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1145/2516540.2516554
  19. William J Horrey and Mary F Lesch. 2009. Driver-initiated distractions: examining strategic adaptation for in-vehicle task initiation. Accident; analysis and prevention 41, 1 (Jan. 2009), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2008.10.008
  20. Dissociation between driving performance and drivers’ subjective estimates of performance and workload in dual-task conditions. Journal of safety research 40, 1 (Jan. 2009), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2008.10.011
  21. Natural Break Points: The Influence of Priorities and Cognitive and Motor Cues on Dual-Task Interleaving. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 6, 1 (March 2012), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343411432339
  22. History and future of human-automation interaction. International journal of human-computer studies 131 (Nov. 2019), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.05.006
  23. Interrupted by my car? Implications of interruption and interleaving research for automated vehicles. International journal of human-computer studies 130 (Oct. 2019), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.07.004
  24. The impact of Non-Driving Related Tasks on Take-over Performance in Conditionally Automated Driving–A Review of the Empirical Evidence. In 9. Tagung Automatisiertes Fahren. mediatum.ub.tum.de, Munich, Germany. https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/1535156
  25. Sensors Know When to Interrupt You in the Car: Detecting Driver Interruptibility Through Monitoring of Peripheral Interactions. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702409
  26. Compulsive YouTube usage: A comparison of use motivation and personality effects. Computers in human behavior 87 (Oct. 2018), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.038
  27. Brandy Klug. 2017. An overview of the system usability scale in library website and system usability testing. Weave Journal of Library User Experience 1, 6 (April 2017). https://doi.org/10.3998/weave.12535642.0001.602
  28. Iuliia Kotseruba and John K. Tsotsos. 2021. Behavioral Research and Practical Models of Drivers’ Attention. CoRR abs/2104.05677 (2021). arXiv:2104.05677 https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.05677
  29. Augmented Reality Displays for Communicating Uncertainty Information in Automated Driving. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Toronto, ON, Canada) (AutomotiveUI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1145/3239060.3239074
  30. Automation transparency: implications of uncertainty communication for human-automation interaction and interfaces. Ergonomics 62, 3 (March 2019), 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2018.1547842
  31. Effects of different non-driving-related-task display modes on drivers’ eye-movement patterns during take-over in an automated vehicle. Transportation research. Part F, Traffic psychology and behaviour 70 (2020), 135–148. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136984781930659X
  32. Get Ready for Take-Overs: Using Head-Up Display for Drivers to Engage in Non–Driving-Related Tasks in Automated Vehicles. Human Factors 65, 8 (2023), 1759–1775. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211056200 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211056200 PMID: 34865560.
  33. Using eye-tracking to investigate the effects of pre-takeover visual engagement on situation awareness during automated driving. Accident; analysis and prevention 157 (July 2021), 106143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106143
  34. Strategies to Assist Drivers in Remaining Attentive While Under Partially Automated Driving: Verification of Human–Machine Interface Concepts. Transportation research record 2663, 1 (Jan. 2017), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.3141/2663-03
  35. Tyron Louw and Natasha Merat. 2017. Are you in the loop? Using gaze dispersion to understand driver visual attention during vehicle automation. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 76 (March 2017), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.01.001
  36. Understanding and Applying the Concept of “Driver Availability” in Automated Driving. In Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation, Neville A Stanton (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 595–605.
  37. Daniel C McFarlane. 2002. Comparison of Four Primary Methods for Coordinating the Interruption of People in Human-Computer Interaction. Human–Computer Interaction 17, 1 (March 2002), 63–139. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327051HCI1701_2
  38. Transition to manual: Driver behaviour when resuming control from a highly automated vehicle. Transportation research. Part F, Traffic psychology and behaviour 27, Part B (Nov. 2014), 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.09.005
  39. Stephen Monsell. 2003. Task switching. Trends in cognitive sciences 7, 3 (March 2003), 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7
  40. Task-set reconfiguration with predictable and unpredictable task switches. Memory & cognition 31, 3 (April 2003), 327–342. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194391
  41. A Review of Non-driving-related Tasks Used in Studies on Automated Driving. In Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation, Neville A Stanton (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 525–537.
  42. Secondary task engagement and vehicle automation–Comparing the effects of different automation levels in an on-road experiment. Transportation research. Part F, Traffic psychology and behaviour 38 (2016), 67–82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847816000188
  43. The Effects of Cell Phone Use and Automation on Driver Performance and Subjective State in Simulated Driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society … Annual Meeting Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Meeting 56, 1 (Sept. 2012), 1987–1991. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181312561415
  44. Mobile phone use among car drivers and motorcycle riders: The effect of problematic mobile phone use, attitudes, beliefs and perceived risk. Accident; analysis and prevention 143 (Aug. 2020), 105592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105592
  45. Raja Parasuraman and Dietrich H Manzey. 2010. Complacency and bias in human use of automation: an attentional integration. Human factors 52, 3 (June 2010), 381–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720810376055
  46. A User Study of Semi-Autonomous and Autonomous Highway Driving: An Interactive Simulation Study. IEEE pervasive computing / IEEE Computer Society [and] IEEE Communications Society 18, 1 (Jan. 2019), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2018.2873850
  47. How Traffic Situations and Non-Driving Related Tasks Affect the Take-Over Quality in Highly Automated Driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society … Annual Meeting Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Meeting 58, 1 (Sept. 2014), 2063–2067. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581434
  48. Christina M Rudin-Brown and Heather A Parker. 2004. Behavioural adaptation to adaptive cruise control (ACC): implications for preventive strategies. Transportation research. Part F, Traffic psychology and behaviour 7, 2 (March 2004), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2004.02.001
  49. Feel the Movement: Real Motion Influences Responses to Take-over Requests in Highly Automated Vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 246:1–246:13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173820
  50. SAE International. 2021. Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles. Technical Report J3016_202104. SAE International.
  51. Toward a Unified Theory of the Multitasking Continuum: From Concurrent Performance to Task Switching, Interruption, and Resumption. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, MA, USA) (CHI ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1819–1828. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518981
  52. Nadja Schömig and Barbara Metz. 2013. Three levels of situation awareness in driving with secondary tasks. Safety science 56 (July 2013), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.05.029
  53. Ronald Schroeter and Fabius Steinberger. 2016. Pokémon DRIVE: towards increased situational awareness in semi-automated driving. In Proceedings of the 28th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (Launceston, Tasmania, Australia) (OzCHI ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3010915.3010973
  54. Designing Gamified Applications That Make Safe Driving More Engaging. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2826–2839. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025511
  55. Priming Drivers before Handover in Semi-Autonomous Cars. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025507
  56. Autonomous driving: investigating the feasibility of car-driver handover assistance. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Nottingham, United Kingdom) (AutomotiveUI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/2799250.2799268
  57. Jingyan Wan and Changxu Wu. 2018. The Effects of Lead Time of Take-Over Request and Nondriving Tasks on Taking-Over Control of Automated Vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 48, 6 (Dec. 2018), 582–591. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2018.2844251
  58. Attentional models of multitask pilot performance using advanced display technology. Human factors 45, 3 (2003), 360–380. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.45.3.360.27250
  59. Pilot Task Management : Testing an Attentional Expected Value Model of Visual Scanning. Savoy, IL, UIUC Institute of Aviation Technical Report (2001). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15360568
  60. Introduction to Human Factors Engineering (2nd Edition). Prentice-Hall, Inc., USA.
  61. More than the Useful Field: Considering peripheral vision in driving. Applied ergonomics 65 (Nov. 2017), 316–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.07.009
  62. Carrot and stick: A game-theoretic approach to motivate cooperative driving through social interaction. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 88 (March 2018), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.01.017
Citations (3)
View on Semantic Scholar
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

User Circle Single Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now
Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Paper Prompts

Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.

List Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Explore 10 Community Prompts
Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Generate Now
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets

Don't miss out on important new AI/ML research

See which papers are being discussed right now on X, Reddit, and more:

Explore Trending Papers

“Emergent Mind helps me see which AI papers have caught fire online.”

Philip

Philip

Creator, AI Explained on YouTube