User evaluation of comfortable deceleration profiles for highly automated driving: Findings from a test track study
DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2024.05.025
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 investigates passenger comfort regarding deceleration profiles in highly automated vehicles (HAVs), addressing the challenge of aligning automated driving styles with human preferences. While previous research has focused on acceleration and jerk values, there is limited understanding of how specific deceleration profiles and passenger engagement in non-driving related activities (NDRAs) affect comfort. The authors aimed to determine if different deceleration profiles are rated differently in terms of comfort, how driving scenarios influence these ratings, and whether visual distraction impacts perceived comfort. The experiment was conducted on a closed test track with 36 participants acting as passengers in a Level 4 automated vehicle. The study employed a within-subject design where participants experienced three distinct deceleration profiles: a linear "One-Step" profile derived from standard Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), and two "Two-Step" profiles (V1 and V2) derived from the driving data of a professional chauffeur. The Two-Step profiles involved a gradual release of the accelerator followed by braking, designed to reduce initial jerk. Participants rated comfort on a 7-point Likert scale after four specific scenarios: decelerating before wide and narrow curves, approaching a speed-limit sign, and stopping at a stop sign. Additionally, the impact of visual distraction was tested by having participants perform a surrogate reference task on a smartphone during half of the trials, with eye-tracking data used to verify attention diversion. Results indicated that all three deceleration profiles received positive comfort ratings. However, preferences varied by scenario and profile characteristics. For decelerations to a standstill at a stop sign, participants preferred the continuous One-Step approach. Conversely, the Two-Step V1 profile was frequently ranked as a personal favorite and described as "gentle" and "calmer" compared to the One-Step and Two-Step V2 profiles. The Two-Step V2, which featured a higher peak deceleration, was less preferred. Regarding the impact of NDRAs, visual distraction had no statistically significant effect on overall comfort ratings or profile preferences. However, participants reported perceiving a lower intensity of longitudinal vehicle movements when visually distracted. Eye-tracking data confirmed that participants successfully diverted their attention from the road during the distraction condition. The findings suggest that while linear deceleration is preferred for complete stops, stepwise deceleration profiles inspired by professional chauffeurs can enhance perceived comfort in other scenarios by providing a smoother, less abrupt experience. The study highlights that the shape of the deceleration profile, particularly the management of initial jerk, is critical for passenger comfort. Furthermore, the lack of significant impact from visual distraction on comfort ratings implies that current deceleration profiles may be robust enough for distracted passengers, though the subjective perception of motion intensity changes. These insights provide actionable guidelines for designing HAV driving styles that balance technical efficiency with human-like comfort.
Key finding
Participants preferred the gentle Two-Step V1 deceleration profile as a personal favorite and the continuous One-Step profile for stopping maneuvers, while visual distraction did not significantly impact perceived comfort or profile preferences.
Methodology
on_road
Sample size: 36
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 | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-07 |
| archive | success | core_acuk | — | — | 3 | 2026-06-04 |
| extract | success | cached | — | — | 3 | 2026-06-10 |
| clean | success | clean | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| chunk | success | chunk | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| embed | success | embed | Qwen/Qwen3-Embedding-8B | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| enrich | failed | — | — | — | 4 | 2026-07-02 |
| promote | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| summarize | success | llm | qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant | summ-v5 | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
| tag | success | vector_similarity | — | — | 15 | 2026-06-11 |
| verify | success | — | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.
Topics
Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.
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).
- Empirical Findings: behavioral performance data, self report data