Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 282

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The “Out-of-the-Loop” concept in automated driving: proposed definition, measures and implications

Open access
Merat, Natasha, Seppelt, Bobbie, Louw, Tyron, Engström, Johan, Lee, John D., Johansson, Emma, Green, Charles A., Katazaki, Satoshi, Monk, Chris, Itoh, Makoto, McGehee, Daniel, Sunda, Takashi, Unoura, Kiyozumi, Victor, Trent, Schieben, Anna, Keinath, Andreas·2019·Cognition, Technology & Work

Abstract

Despite an abundant use of the term “Out of the loop” (OOTL) in the context of automated driving and human factors research, there is currently a lack of consensus on its precise definition, how it can be measured, and the practical implications of being in or out of the loop during automated driving. The main objective of this paper is to consider the above issues, with the goal of achieving a shared understanding of the OOTL concept between academics and practitioners. To this end, the paper reviews existing definitions of OOTL and outlines a set of concepts, which, based on the human factors and driver behaviour literature, could serve as the basis for a commonly-agreed definition. Following a series of working group meetings between representatives from academia, research institutions and industrial partners across Europe, North America, and Japan, we suggest a precise definition of being in, out, and on the loop in the driving context. These definitions are linked directly to whether or not the driver is in physical control of the vehicle, and also the degree of situation monitoring required and afforded by the driver. A consideration of how this definition can be operationalized and measured in empirical studies is then provided, and the paper concludes with a short overview of the implications of this definition for the development of automated driving functions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10111-018-0525-8

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 62 references

Cited by

See all 282

Metadata

Authors
Merat, N., Seppelt, B., Louw, T., Engström, J., Lee, J. D., Johansson, E., Green, C. A., Katazaki, S., Monk, C., Itoh, M., McGehee, D., Sunda, T., Unoura, K., Victor, T., Schieben, A., & Keinath, A.
Venue
Cognition, Technology & Work
Published
2018-09-15
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
87-98
ISSN
  • 1435-5558 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-5566
OpenAlex
W2892156502
Cited by
282
References
62
FWCI
21.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The “Out-of-the-Loop” concept in automated driving: proposed definition, measures and implications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10111-018-0525-8
The paper
Merat, N., Seppelt, B., Louw, T., Engström, J., Lee, J. D., Johansson, E., Green, C. A., Katazaki, S., Monk, C., Itoh, M., McGehee, D., Sunda, T., Unoura, K., Victor, T., Schieben, A., & Keinath, A. (2019). The “Out-of-the-Loop” concept in automated driving: proposed definition, measures and implications. Cognition, Technology & Work. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0525-8

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.