How to assess driver's interaction with partially automated driving systems – A framework for early concept assessment
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2016.09.005
archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified
Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)
Summary
This study addresses the challenge of evaluating driver-vehicle interfaces for partially automated driving systems, where the driver’s role shifts from active control to supervision with occasional intervention. The authors propose and validate an assessment framework designed to evaluate interface support during early design phases. The framework focuses on three key aspects: gained Situation Awareness (SA), Accident Avoidance (performance in critical situations), and Concept Acceptance. The motivation stems from the lack of existing tools to reliably assess how well interfaces support drivers in supervisory tasks and rapid takeovers, which are critical for safety and usability. The methodology involved a driving simulator experiment with 24 participants. The study utilized six predefined scenarios: three "hazardous" situations requiring increased attention and three "critical" situations requiring intervention to avoid accidents. Three different interface concepts, offering varying levels of support through visual and audible warnings, were tested. The researchers measured SA using two techniques: the Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT), a probing method, and the Situation Awareness Rating Technique (SART), a self-assessment method. Performance was assessed via Accident Avoidance metrics, including collision occurrence and Time-To-Collision (TTC). Concept Acceptance was measured using established scales for perceived usefulness and satisfaction. The experimental design aimed to determine if the framework could reliably distinguish between interfaces with predefined differences in support levels. The results demonstrated that the framework is reliable in identifying the worst-performing interface concept, which consistently yielded lower scores across all measures. However, the framework showed weak sensitivity in distinguishing between the better-performing concepts, as differences in SA and performance scores were often small and not statistically significant. Specifically, SAGAT identified significant differences in comprehension levels for critical scenarios, whereas SART failed to reveal significant differences between concepts. Accident Avoidance metrics and Concept Acceptance scores aligned with the expected hierarchy of support, confirming the framework's predictive value. The study concluded that while the framework is effective for early-stage concept comparison and identifying inadequate designs, it may lack the granularity to detect subtle improvements between high-performing interfaces. The significance of this work lies in providing a structured, validated tool for ergonomists and designers to evaluate partially automated driving interfaces before real-world testing. By combining cognitive (SA), operational (Accident Avoidance), and subjective (Acceptance) measures, the framework offers a comprehensive approach to assessing driver support. The findings suggest that such frameworks are particularly valuable for filtering out poor design concepts early in the development process, thereby contributing to the efficient creation of safe and user-friendly automated vehicle systems. The study highlights the importance of using multiple measurement techniques to capture different dimensions of driver interaction with automation.
Provenance
The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.
| Stage | Outcome | Tool | Model | Prompt | Attempts | Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| discover | success | Crossref | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-17 |
| archive | success | openalex | — | — | 5 | 2026-06-25 |
| extract | success | pdftotext | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-26 |
| clean | success | clean | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-26 |
| chunk | success | chunk | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-26 |
| embed | success | embed | Qwen/Qwen3-Embedding-8B | — | 1 | 2026-06-26 |
| enrich | failed | — | — | — | 5 | 2026-07-05 |
| promote | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-17 |
| summarize | success | llm | qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant | summ-v5 | 1 | 2026-06-25 |
| tag | success | vector_similarity | — | — | 6 | 2026-06-26 |
| verify | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-26 |
Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-25; verification: verified.
Topics
Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.
- situational awareness
- automation
- automation surprise
- mode awareness
- situation awareness theory
- automation complacency bias
Information type
What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).
- Methodological Resource: validation psychometrics, tool software
- Theoretical Contribution: conceptual framework