Driver Vigilance Decrement is More Severe During Automated Driving than Manual Driving

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The present study compared the performance, workload, and stress associated with driver vigilance in two types of vehicle: a traditional, manually operated vehicle, and a partially automated vehicle. BACKGROUND: Drivers of partially automated vehicles must monitor for hazards that constitute automation failures and the need for human intervention, but recent research indicates that a driver's ability to do so declines as a function of time. That research lacked a comparison measure of driving without vehicle automation, so it is unknown to what degree these effects are specific symptoms of monitoring the roadway during an automated drive. Drivers in manual control of their vehicle must similarly monitor for hazards and may suffer similar vigilance decrements. METHOD: Participants completed a simulated 40-minute drive while monitoring for hazards. Half of participants completed the drive with an automated driving system that maintained speed and lane position; the remaining half manually controlled the vehicle's speed and lane position. RESULTS: Driver sensitivity to hazards decreased and tendency to make false alarms increased over time in the automated control condition, but not in the manual control condition. Drivers in both conditions detected fewer hazards as the drive progressed. Ratings of workload and task-induced stress were elevated similarly in both conditions. CONCLUSION: Partially automated driving appears to uniquely impair driver vigilance by reducing the ability to discriminate between benign and dangerous events in the driving environment as the drive progresses. APPLICATION: Applied interventions should target improvements in driver sensitivity to hazardous situations that signal potential automation failures.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 45 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.