CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyVehicle Dynamics and Control SystemsAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety

Actual Achieved Gain and Optimal Perceived Gain: Modeling Human Take-over Decisions Towards Automated Vehicles' Suggestions

Open access
Zhang, Shuning, Yi, Xin, Li, Shixuan, Hong, Chuye, Chen, Gujun, Liu, Jiarui, Wang, Xueyang, Hu, Yongquan +2 more·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2502.06179arXiv 2502.06179
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Driver decision quality in take-overs is critical for effective human-Autonomous Driving System (ADS) collaboration. However, current research lacks detailed analysis of its variations. This paper introduces two metrics--Actual Achieved Gain (AAG) and Optimal Perceived Gain (OPG)--to assess decision quality, with OPG representing optimal decisions and AAG reflecting actual outcomes. Both are calculated as weighted averages of perceived gains and losses, influenced by ADS accuracy. Study 1 (N=315) used a 21-point Thurstone scale to measure perceived gains and losses-key components of AAG and OPG-across typical tasks: route selection, overtaking, and collision avoidance. Studies 2 (N=54) and 3 (N=54) modeled decision quality under varying ADS accuracy and decision time. Results show with sufficient time (>3.5s), AAG converges towards OPG, indicating rational decision-making, while limited time leads to intuitive and deterministic choices. Study 3 also linked AAG-OPG deviations to irrational behaviors. An intervention study (N=8) and a pilot (N=4) employing voice alarms and multi-modal alarms based on these deviations demonstrated AAG's potential to improve decision quality.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2502.06179

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 119

  1. Kumar Akash, Neera Jain, and Teruhisa Misu. 2020. Toward adaptive trust calibration for level 2 driving automation. In Proceedings of the 2020 international conference on multimodal interaction. 538-547.
  2. Hebert Azevedo-Sa, Suresh Kumaar Jayaraman, Connor T Esterwood, X Jessie Yang, Lionel P Robert, and Dawn M Tilbury. 2020. Real-time estimation of drivers' trust in automated driving systems. International Journal of Social Robotics (2020), 1-17.
  3. Pavlo Bazilinskyy, Sebastiaan M Petermeijer, Veronika Petrovych, Dimitra Dodou, and Joost CF de Winter. 2018. Take-over requests in highly automated driving: A crowdsourcing survey on auditory, vibrotactile, and visual displays. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 56 (2018), 82-98.
  4. Angela Bearth and Michael Siegrist. 2016. Are risk or benefit perceptions more important for public acceptance of innovative food technologies: A meta- analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology 49 (2016), 14-23.
  5. Johannes Beller, Matthias Heesen, and Mark Vollrath. 2013. Improving the driver-automation interaction: An approach using automation uncertainty. Human factors 55, 6 (2013), 1130-1141.
  6. Anika Boelhouwer, Arie P van den Beukel, Mascha C van der Voort, and Marieke H Martens. 2019. Should I take over? Does system knowledge help drivers in making take-over decisions while driving a partially automated car? Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 60 (2019), 669- 684.
  7. Shadan Sadeghian Borojeni, Lewis Chuang, Wilko Heuten, and Susanne Boll. 2016. Assisting drivers with ambient take-over requests in highly automated driving. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. 237-244.
  8. Guillaume Bouyer, Amine Chellali, and Anatole Lécuyer. 2017. Inducing self- motion sensations in driving simulators using force-feedback and haptic motion. In 2017 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR). IEEE, 84-90.
  9. Christian Braunagel, Wolfgang Rosenstiel, and Enkelejda Kasneci. 2017. Ready for take-over? A new driver assistance system for an automated classification of driver take-over readiness. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine 9, 4 (2017), 10-22.
  10. Teresa Brell, Ralf Philipsen, and Martina Ziefle. 2019. sCARy! Risk perceptions in autonomous driving: The influence of experience on perceived benefits and barriers. Risk analysis 39, 2 (2019), 342-357.
  11. Oliver Carsten and A Hamish Jamson. 2011. Driving simulators as research tools in traffic psychology. In Handbook of traffic psychology. Elsevier, 87-96.
  12. Guy Cohen-Lazry, Avinoam Borowsky, and Tal Oron-Gilad. 2017. The effects of continuous driving-related feedback on drivers' response to automation failures. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 61. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 1980-1984.
  13. Mark Colley, Lukas Gruler, Marcel Woide, and Enrico Rukzio. 2021. Investigating the design of information presentation in take-over requests in automated vehicles. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Mobile Human- Computer Interaction. 1-15.
  14. Hanwen Deng, Guoliang Xiang, Jiandong Pan, Xianhui Wu, Chaojie Fan, Kui Wang, and Yong Peng. 2024. How to design driver takeover request in real- world scenarios: A systematic review. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 104 (2024), 411-432.
  15. Henrik Detjen, Sarah Faltaous, Bastian Pfleging, Stefan Geisler, and Stefan Schneegass. 2021. How to increase automated vehicles' acceptance through in- vehicle interaction design: A review. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 37, 4 (2021), 308-330.
  16. Alexey Dosovitskiy, German Ros, Felipe Codevilla, Antonio Lopez, and Vladlen Koltun. 2017. CARLA: An open urban driving simulator. In Conference on robot learning. PMLR, 1-16.
  17. Na Du, Feng Zhou, Elizabeth Pulver, Dawn Tilbury, Lionel P Robert, Anuj K Pradhan, and X Jessie Yang. 2020. Predicting takeover performance in condi- tionally automated driving. In Extended abstracts of the 2020 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1-8.
  18. Alexander Eriksson, Sebastiaan M Petermeijer, Markus Zimmermann, Joost CF De Winter, Klaus J Bengler, and Neville A Stanton. 2018. Rolling out the red (and green) carpet: supporting driver decision making in automation-to-manual transitions. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 49, 1 (2018), 20-31.
  19. Alexander Eriksson and Neville A Stanton. 2017. Takeover time in highly automated vehicles: noncritical transitions to and from manual control. Human factors 59, 4 (2017), 689-705.
  20. Jonathan St BT Evans. 2003. In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in cognitive sciences 7, 10 (2003), 454-459.
  21. Sarah Faltaous, Martin Baumann, Stefan Schneegass, and Lewis L Chuang. 2018. Design guidelines for reliability communication in autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. 258-267.
  22. Anna Feldhütter, Alexandra Ruhl, Alexander Feierle, and Klaus Bengler. 2019. The effect of fatigue on take-over performance in urgent situations in con- ditionally automated driving. In 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC). IEEE, 1889-1894.
  23. Gregory M Fitch, Jonathan M Hankey, Brian M Kleiner, and Thomas A Dingus. 2011. Driver comprehension of multiple haptic seat alerts intended for use in an integrated collision avoidance system. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 14, 4 (2011), 278-290.
  24. Yannick Forster, Frederik Naujoks, Alexandra Neukum, and Lynn Huestegge. 2017. Driver compliance to take-over requests with different auditory outputs in conditional automation. Accident Analysis & Prevention 109 (2017), 18-28.
  25. David Gal and Derek D Rucker. 2018. The loss of loss aversion: Will it loom larger than its gain? Journal of Consumer Psychology 28, 3 (2018), 497-516.
  26. Claudia Geitner, Francesco Biondi, Lee Skrypchuk, Paul Jennings, and Stewart Birrell. 2019. The comparison of auditory, tactile, and multimodal warnings for the effective communication of unexpected events during an automated driving scenario. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 65 (2019), 23-33.
  27. Christian Gold, Daniel Damböck, Lutz Lorenz, and Klaus Bengler. 2013. "Take over!" How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop?. In Proceed- ings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, Vol. 57. Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 1938-1942.
  28. Christian Gold, Moritz Körber, Christoph Hohenberger, David Lechner, and Klaus Bengler. 2015. Trust in automation-before and after the experience of take-over scenarios in a highly automated vehicle. Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015), 3025-3032.
  29. Christian Gold, Moritz Körber, David Lechner, and Klaus Bengler. 2016. Taking over control from highly automated vehicles in complex traffic situations: The role of traffic density. Human factors 58, 4 (2016), 642-652.
  30. Leo A Goodman. 1961. Snowball sampling. The annals of mathematical statistics (1961), 148-170.
  31. Timotej Gruden, Jaka Sodnik, and Grega Jakus. 2023. Assisted Partial Take-Over in Conditionally Automated Driving: A User Study. IEEE Access (2023).
  32. Peter A Hancock, Tara Kajaks, Jeff K Caird, Mark H Chignell, Sachi Mizobuchi, Peter C Burns, Jing Feng, Geoff R Fernie, Martin Lavallière, Ian Y Noy, et al. 2020. Challenges to human drivers in increasingly automated vehicles. Human factors 62, 2 (2020), 310-328.
  33. Tove Helldin, Göran Falkman, Maria Riveiro, and Staffan Davidsson. 2013. Pre- senting 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. 210-217.
  34. Charles A Holt and Susan K Laury. 2002. Risk aversion and incentive effects. American economic review 92, 5 (2002), 1644-1655.
  35. Constantin Hubmann, Marvin Becker, Daniel Althoff, David Lenz, and Christoph Stiller. 2017. Decision making for autonomous driving considering interaction and uncertain prediction of surrounding vehicles. In 2017 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV). IEEE, 1671-1678.
  36. Quinate Chioma Ihemedu-Steinke, Stanislava Rangelova, Michael Weber, Rainer Erbach, Gerrit Meixner, and Nicola Marsden. 2017. Simulation sickness related to virtual reality driving simulation. In Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality: 9th International Conference, VAMR 2017, Held as Part of HCI International 2017, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 9-14, 2017, Proceedings 9. Springer, 521-532.
  37. Shamsi T Iqbal, Eric Horvitz, Yun-Cheng Ju, and Ella Mathews. 2011. Hang on a sec! Effects of proactive mediation of phone conversations while driving. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 463-472.
  38. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. 2013. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I. World Scientific, 99-127.
  39. Gwangbin Kim, Dohyeon Yeo, Taewoo Jo, Daniela Rus, and SeungJun Kim. 2023. What and When to Explain? On-road Evaluation of Explanations in Highly Automated Vehicles. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 7, 3 (2023), 1-26.
  40. Hyung Jun Kim and Ji Hyun Yang. 2017. Takeover requests in simulated partially autonomous vehicles considering human factors. IEEE Transactions on Human- Machine Systems 47, 5 (2017), 735-740.
  41. Jeamin Koo, Dongjun Shin, Martin Steinert, and Larry Leifer. 2016. Understand- ing driver responses to voice alerts of autonomous car operations. International journal of vehicle design 70, 4 (2016), 377-392.
  42. Wouter Kool, Samuel J Gershman, and Fiery A Cushman. 2017. Cost-benefit arbitration between multiple reinforcement-learning systems. Psychological science 28, 9 (2017), 1321-1333.
  43. Moritz Körber, Christian Gold, David Lechner, and Klaus Bengler. 2016. The influence of age on the take-over of vehicle control in highly automated driving. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 39 (2016), 19-32.
  44. Moritz Körber, Lorenz Prasch, and Klaus Bengler. 2018. Why do I have to drive now? Post hoc explanations of takeover requests. Human factors 60, 3 (2018), 305-323.
  45. Johannes Kraus, David Scholz, Dina Stiegemeier, and Martin Baumann. 2020. The more you know: trust dynamics and calibration in highly automated driving and the effects of take-overs, system malfunction, and system transparency. Human factors 62, 5 (2020), 718-736.
  46. Alexander Kunze, Stephen J Summerskill, Russell Marshall, and Ashleigh J Filtness. 2019. Automation transparency: implications of uncertainty commu- nication for human-automation interaction and interfaces. Ergonomics 62, 3 (2019), 345-360.
  47. Moritz Körber, Eva Baseler, and Klaus Bengler. 2018. Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving. Applied Ergonomics 66 (2018), 18-31. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2017.07.006 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Sabine Langlois and Boussaad Soualmi. 2016. Augmented reality versus classical HUD to take over from automated driving: An aid to smooth reactions and to anticipate maneuvers. In 2016 IEEE 19th international conference on intelligent transportation systems (ITSC). IEEE, 1571-1578.
  49. Seul Chan Lee, Sol Hee Yoon, and Yong Gu Ji. 2021. Effects of non-driving- related task attributes on takeover quality in automated vehicles. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 37, 3 (2021), 211-219.
  50. Jasmin Leitner, Linda Miller, Tanja Stoll, and Martin Baumann. 2023. Overtake or not-A computer-based driving simulation experiment on drivers' decisions during transitions in automated driving. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 96 (2023), 285-300.
  51. Jue Li, Jiawen Liu, Xiaoshan Wang, and Long Liu. 2024. The Impact of Trans- parency on Driver Trust and Reliance in Highly Automated Driving: Presenting Appropriate Transparency in Automotive HMI. Applied Sciences 14, 8 (2024), 3203.
  52. Jue Li, Jiawen Liu, Xiaoshan Wang, and Long Liu. 2024. Investigating the factors influencing user trust and driving performance in level 3 automated driving from the perspective of perceived benefits. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 105 (2024), 58-72.
  53. Mengyao Li, Brittany E Holthausen, Rachel E Stuck, and Bruce N Walker. 2019. No risk no trust: Investigating perceived risk in highly automated driving. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. 177-185.
  54. Qingfeng Lin, Shiqi Li, Xiaowei Ma, and Guangquan Lu. 2020. Understanding take-over performance of high crash risk drivers during conditionally automated driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention 143 (2020), 105543.
  55. Yongling Lin, Pengfei Xu, Jiayu Fan, Ruolei Gu, and Yue-jia Luo. 2023. Gain-loss separability in human-but not computer-based changes of mind. Computers in Human Behavior 143 (2023), 107712.
  56. Yu-Tse Lin, Kang-Ning Xia, and Lien-Ti Bei. 2015. Customer's perceived value of waiting time for service events. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 14, 1 (2015), 28-40.
  57. Patrick Lindemann, Niklas Müller, and Gerhard Rigolll. 2019. Exploring the use of augmented reality interfaces for driver assistance in short-notice takeovers. In 2019 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 804-809.
  58. Tianwei Liu, Huiping Zhou, Makoto Itoh, and Satoshi Kitazaki. 2018. The impact of explanation on possibility of hazard detection failure on driver intervention under partial driving automation. In 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 150-155.
  59. Lutz Lorenz, Philipp Kerschbaum, and Josef Schumann. 2014. Designing take over scenarios for automated driving: How does augmented reality support the driver to get back into the loop?. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 58. Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 1681-1685.
  60. 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 (2017), 35-50.
  61. Shuai Ma, Ying Lei, Xinru Wang, Chengbo Zheng, Chuhan Shi, Ming Yin, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2023. Who should i trust: Ai or myself? leveraging human and ai correctness likelihood to promote appropriate trust in ai-assisted decision- making. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput- ing Systems. 1-19.
  62. Zheng Ma and Yiqi Zhang. 2021. Drivers trust, acceptance, and takeover behav- iors in fully automated vehicles: Effects of automated driving styles and driver's driving styles. Accident Analysis & Prevention 159 (2021), 106238.
  63. Udara Manawadu, Masaaki Ishikawa, Mitsuhiro Kamezaki, and Shigeki Sugano. 2015. Analysis of individual driving experience in autonomous and human- driven vehicles using a driving simulator. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM). IEEE, 299-304.
  64. Udara E Manawadu, Mitsuhiro Kamezaki, Masaaki Ishikawa, Takahiro Kawano, and Shigeki Sugano. 2016. A haptic feedback driver-vehicle interface for con- trolling lateral and longitudinal motions of autonomous vehicles. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM). IEEE, 119- 124.
  65. Carina Manger, Jakob Peintner, Marion Hoffmann, Mirella Probst, Raphael Wennmacher, and Andreas Riener. 2023. Providing Explainability in Safety- Critical Automated Driving Situations through Augmented Reality Windshield HMIs. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 174-179.
  66. Roderick McCall, Fintan McGee, Alexander Meschtscherjakov, Nicolas Louve- ton, and Thomas Engel. 2016. Towards A Taxonomy of Autonomous Vehicle Handover Situations. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Au- tomotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Ann Arbor, MI, USA) (Automotive'UI 16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 193-200. doi:10.1145/3003715.3005456 · DOI
  67. Daniel V McGehee and Oliver MJ Carsten. 2010. Perception and biody- namics in unalerted precrash response. In Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine/Annual Scientific Conference, Vol. 54. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, 315.
  68. A Peter McGraw, Jeff T Larsen, Daniel Kahneman, and David Schkade. 2010. Comparing gains and losses. Psychological science 21, 10 (2010), 1438-1445.
  69. Brendan D McKay and Ian M Wanless. 2005. On the number of Latin squares. Annals of combinatorics 9, 3 (2005), 335-344.
  70. Vivien Melcher, Stefan Rauh, Frederik Diederichs, Harald Widlroither, and Wilhelm Bauer. 2015. Take-over requests for automated driving. Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015), 2867-2873.
  71. Coleman Merenda, Hyungil Kim, Joseph L Gabbard, Samantha Leong, David R Large, and Gary Burnett. 2017. Did you see me? assessing perceptual vs. real driving gains across multi-modal pedestrian alert systems. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 40-49.
  72. Jan Cedric Mertens, Christian Knies, Frank Diermeyer, Svenja Escherle, and Sven Kraus. 2020. The need for cooperative automated driving. Electronics 9, 5 (2020), 754.
  73. Herbert Mohring. 1971. Alternative welfare gain and loss measures. Economic Inquiry 9, 4 (1971), 349.
  74. J Navarro, M François, and F Mars. 2016. Obstacle avoidance under automated steering: Impact on driving and gaze behaviours. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 43 (2016), 315-324.
  75. Adam Oliver. 2018. Your money and your life: Risk attitudes over gains and losses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 57, 1 (2018), 29-50.
  76. Erfan Pakdamanian, Shili Sheng, Sonia Baee, Seongkook Heo, Sarit Kraus, and Lu Feng. 2021. Deeptake: Prediction of driver takeover behavior using multimodal data. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-14.
  77. Sanna M Pampel, David R Large, Gary Burnett, Rebecca Matthias, Simon Thomp- son, and Lee Skrypchuk. 2019. Getting the driver back into the loop: The quality of manual vehicle control following long and short non-critical transfer-of- control requests: TI: NS. Theoretical issues in ergonomics science 20, 3 (2019), 265-283.
  78. So Yeon Park, Dylan James Moore, and David Sirkin. 2020. What a driver wants: User preferences in semi-autonomous vehicle decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-13.
  79. Sebastiaan Petermeijer, Pavlo Bazilinskyy, Klaus Bengler, and Joost De Winter. 2017. Take-over again: Investigating multimodal and directional TORs to get the driver back into the loop. Applied ergonomics 62 (2017), 204-215.
  80. Ioannis Politis, Stephen Brewster, and Frank Pollick. 2015. Language-based mul- timodal displays for the handover of control in autonomous cars. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. 3-10.
  81. Matthew S Prewett, Linda R Elliott, Ashley G Walvoord, and Michael D Coovert. 2011. A meta-analysis of vibrotactile and visual information displays for im- proving task performance. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) 42, 1 (2011), 123-132.
  82. Matihew Rabin. 2013. Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: A calibration theorem. In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I. World Scientific, 241-252.
  83. Jonas Radlmayr, Christian Gold, Lutz Lorenz, Mehdi Farid, and Klaus Bengler. 2014. How traffic situations and non-driving related tasks affect the take-over quality in highly automated driving. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, Vol. 58. Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2063-2067.
  84. Jonas Radlmayr, Thomas Selzer, Antonio Arcati, and Klaus Bengler. 2015. Haptic gear shifting indication: evaluating acceptance and potential fuel consumption reduction. Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015), 2746-2752.
  85. Fabienne Roche and Stefan Brandenburg. 2018. Should the urgency of auditory- tactile takeover requests match the criticality of takeover situations?. In 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). IEEE, 1035-1040.
  86. Marlene Susanne Lisa Scharfe, Kathrin Zeeb, and Nele Russwinkel. 2020. The impact of situational complexity and familiarity on takeover quality in uncritical highly automated driving scenarios. Information 11, 2 (2020), 115.
  87. Markus Schratter, Michael Hartmann, and Daniel Watzenig. 2019. Pedestrian collision avoidance system for autonomous vehicles. SAE International Journal of Connected and Automated Vehicles 2, 12-02-04-0021 (2019), 279-293.
  88. Chris Schwarz, John Gaspar, and Timothy Brown. 2019. The effect of reliability on drivers' trust and behavior in conditional automation. Cognition, Technology & Work 21 (2019), 41-54.
  89. Shili Sheng, Erfan Pakdamanian, Kyungtae Han, Ziran Wang, John Lenneman, and Lu Feng. 2021. Trust-based route planning for automated vehicles. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 12th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems. 1-10.
  90. Nikita Smirnov, Yuzhou Liu, Aso Validi, Walter Morales-Alvarez, and Cristina Olaverri-Monreal. 2021. A game theory-based approach for modeling au- tonomous vehicle behavior in congested, urban lane-changing scenarios. Sensors 21, 4 (2021), 1523.
  91. Anna-Maria Sourelli, Ruth Welsh, and Pete Thomas. 2021. Objective and per- ceived risk in overtaking: The impact of driving context. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 81 (2021), 190-200.
  92. Felix Steck, Viktoriya Kolarova, Francisco Bahamonde-Birke, Stefan Trommer, and Barbara Lenz. 2018. How autonomous driving may affect the value of travel time savings for commuting. Transportation research record 2672, 46 (2018), 11-20.
  93. Ariel Telpaz, Brian Rhindress, Ido Zelman, and Omer Tsimhoni. 2015. Haptic seat for automated driving: Preparing the driver to take control effectively. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. 23-30.
  94. Louis L Thurstone. 1927. The method of paired comparisons for social values. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 21, 4 (1927), 384.
  95. Pål Ulleberg and Torbjørn Rundmo. 2003. Personality, attitudes and risk per- ception as predictors of risky driving behaviour among young drivers. Safety science 41, 5 (2003), 427-443.
  96. Helena Vasconcelos, Matthew Jörke, Madeleine Grunde-McLaughlin, Tobias Gerstenberg, Michael S Bernstein, and Ranjay Krishna. 2023. Explanations can reduce overreliance on ai systems during decision-making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1-38.
  97. Willem Vlakveld, Nicole van Nes, Jonathan de Bruin, Luuk Vissers, and Merle van der Kroft. 2018. Situation awareness increases when drivers have more time to take over the wheel in a Level 3 automated car: A simulator study. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 58 (2018), 917- 929.
  98. Marcel Walch, Kristin Lange, Martin Baumann, and Michael Weber. 2015. Au- tonomous driving: investigating the feasibility of car-driver handover assistance. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. 11-18.
  99. Marcel Walch, Kristin Mühl, Martin Baumann, and Michael Weber. 2017. Au- tonomous driving: Investigating the feasibility of bimodal take-over requests. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction (IJMHCI) 9, 2 (2017), 58-74.
  100. Marcel Walch, Tobias Sieber, Philipp Hock, Martin Baumann, and Michael Weber. 2016. Towards cooperative driving: Involving the driver in an autonomous vehicle's decision making. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. 261-268.
  101. Marcel Walch, Marcel Woide, Kristin Mühl, Martin Baumann, and Michael Weber. 2019. Cooperative overtaking: Overcoming automated vehicles' obstructed sensor range via driver help. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. 144-155.
  102. 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 (2018), 582-591.
  103. Bernhard Wandtner, Nadja Schömig, and Gerald Schmidt. 2018. Effects of non- driving related task modalities on takeover performance in highly automated driving. Human factors 60, 6 (2018), 870-881.
  104. Qiuhong Wang, Haolin Chen, Jianguo Gong, Xiaohua Zhao, and Zhenlong Li. 2022. Studying Driver's Perception Arousal and Takeover Performance in Autonomous Driving. Sustainability 15, 1 (2022), 445.
  105. Shenhao Wang and Jinhua Zhao. 2019. Risk preference and adoption of au- tonomous vehicles. Transportation research part A: policy and practice 126 (2019), 215-229.
  106. Yi Wang, Wei Zhang, and Ronggang Zhou. 2022. Speech-based takeover requests in conditionally automated driving: Effects of different voices on the driver takeover performance. Applied Ergonomics 101 (2022), 103695.
  107. Shaoyue Wen, Songming Ping, Jialin Wang, Hai-Ning Liang, Xuhai Xu, and Yukang Yan. 2024. AdaptiveVoice: Cognitively Adaptive Voice Interface for Driving Assistance. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-18.
  108. Walter W Wierwille, John G Casali, and Brian S Repa. 1983. Driver steering reaction time to abrupt-onset crosswinds, as measured in a moving-base driving simulator. Human Factors 25, 1 (1983), 103-116.
  109. Jacob O Wobbrock, Leah Findlater, Darren Gergle, and James J Higgins. 2011. The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only anova procedures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 143-146.
  110. Marcel Woide, Mark Colley, Nicole Damm, and Martin Baumann. 2022. Effect of system capability verification on conflict, trust, and behavior in automated vehicles. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 119-130.
  111. Xin Xin, Min Zhao, Moli Zhou, Siyao Lu, Yishan Liu, Daisong Guan, Qianyi Wang, and Yuezhou Zhang. 2019. A literature review of the research on take- over situation in autonomous driving. In Design, User Experience, and Usability. Application Domains: 8th International Conference, DUXU 2019, Held as Part of the 21st HCI International Conference, HCII 2019, Orlando, FL, USA, July 26-31, 2019, Proceedings, Part III 21. Springer, 160-169.
  112. Yucheng Yang, Burak Karakaya, Giancarlo Caccia Dominioni, Kyosuke Kawabe, and Klaus Bengler. 2018. An hmi concept to improve driver's visual behavior and situation awareness in automated vehicle. In 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). IEEE, 650-655.
  113. Dongyeon Yu, Chanho Park, Hoseung Choi, Donggyu Kim, and Sung-Ho Hwang. 2021. Takeover Safety Analysis with Driver Monitoring Systems and Driver- Vehicle Interfaces in Highly Automated Vehicles. Applied Sciences 11, 15 (2021), 6685.
  114. Hanna Yun, Ji Won Lee, Hee Dong Yang, and Ji Hyun Yang. 2018. Experimental Design for Multi-modal Take-over Request for automated driving. In HCI In- ternational 2018-Posters' Extended Abstracts: 20th International Conference, HCI International 2018, Las Vegas, NV, USA, July 15-20, 2018, Proceedings, Part III 20. Springer, 418-425.
  115. Hanna Yun and Ji Hyun Yang. 2020. Multimodal warning design for take-over request in conditionally automated driving. European transport research review 12 (2020), 1-11.
  116. Kathrin Zeeb, Axel Buchner, and Michael Schrauf. 2015. What determines the take-over time? An integrated model approach of driver take-over after automated driving. Accident analysis & prevention 78 (2015), 212-221.
  117. Kathrin Zeeb, Axel Buchner, and Michael Schrauf. 2016. Is take-over time all that matters? The impact of visual-cognitive load on driver take-over quality after conditionally automated driving. Accident analysis & prevention 92 (2016), 230-239.
  118. Bo Zhang, Joost De Winter, Silvia Varotto, Riender Happee, and Marieke Martens. 2019. Determinants of take-over time from automated driving: A meta-analysis of 129 studies. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 64 (2019), 285-307.
  119. Huiping Zhou, Makoto Itoh, and Satoshi Kitazaki. 2021. How does explanation- based knowledge influence driver take-over in conditional driving automation? IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 51, 3 (2021), 188-197.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, S., Yi, X., Li, S., Hong, C., Chen, G., Liu, J., Wang, X., Hu, Y., Wang, Y., & Li, H.
Affiliations
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
Pages
1-18
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2502.06179
arXiv
2502.06179
OpenAlex
W4409884476
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
1.91
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (62132010, 62472243, 2022YFB3105201)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Vehicle Dynamics and Control Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Keywords
human-automation interaction, autonomous vehicles, perceived benefits, human-automation collaboration

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