1 Introduction
2 Improving Understanding of Proactive Steering Intervention
2.1 Approach
2.2 Detailed Design of Visual Content for Steering Intervention
3 Experiments
3.1 Experimental Participants
3.2 Characteristics Investigation
3.3 Experimental Scenarios
Contents | Experiment condition | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
Before intervention | Safety confirmation | O | |||||||
During intervention | System Status | O | O | O | O | ||||
Detected traffic participants | O | O | O | O | |||||
Planned Path | O | O | O | O |
3.4 Instructions
3.5 Evaluation Method
-
Perception of the meaning of provided visual content: “Compared to the condition without information, to what degree did you better notice the following topics?”
-
Topics regarding safe confirmation
-
Safe confirmation
-
-
Topics regarding system status
-
Start timing
-
Status of activation
-
End timing
-
Automated steering
-
-
Topics regarding detected traffic participants
-
Reason of system activation
-
Detected danger
-
-
Topics regarding planned path
-
Planned path
-
-
Necessity of safety confirmation: “To what degree did you need safety confirmation before steering intervention?”
-
Perception of disturbance by information sharing: “Compared to the condition without information, to what degree did you feel that the system disturbed you while driving?”
-
Perception of the benefits of the system with information sharing: “Compared to the condition without information, to what degree did you feel that the system could realize the following?”
-
Avoid a dangerous situation
-
Reduce the number of traffic accidents
-
Decrease your driving workload
-
-
Sense of trust in the system through information sharing: “Compared to the condition without information, to what degree did you feel distrust in the automatic vehicle control system?”
-
Perception of the strangeness of locomotion path with lateral offset
-
“Compared to the base condition, to what degree did you feel the strangeness in the locomotion path?”
-
“To what degree did you feel that some types of visual content reduced your feeling of strangeness?”
-
-
Grade 9: No disturbance
-
Grade 7: Negligible disturbance and no difficulty in driving
-
Grade 5: Slight disturbance, but no difficulty in driving.
-
Grade 3: Experienced disturbance that caused slight difficulty in driving
-
Grade 1: Experienced disturbance that caused substantial difficulty in driving
-
Grade 9: Felt substantially
-
Grade 7: Felt moderately
-
Grade 5: Felt the same as if no information had been provided
-
Grade 3: Did not feel much
-
Grade 1: Did not feel at all
4 Results
4.1 Lateral Deviation when Avoiding Parked Car
4.2 Evaluation of Safety Confirmation
4.3 Intent Understanding of Single Visual Content
-
Intent of visual content providing system status information: Start timing, status of activation, end timing, and automated steering.
-
Intent of visual content providing information about detected traffic participants: Reason for system activation and detected danger.
-
Intent of visual content providing information of planned path: Planned path.
4.4 Corresponding Conjecture of Single Visual Content
4.5 Intent Understanding of Multiple Visual Content Components
4.6 Corresponding Conjecture of Multiple Visual Content Components
4.7 Comparison of Feeling of Disturbance from Visual Content
4.8 Feeling of Benefit from Use of Single Visual Content
4.9 Feeling of Benefits from Multiple Visual Content Components
4.10 Comparison of Feeling of Trust among Visual Content
4.11 Reduction of Perceived Strangeness by the Provision of Visual Content
4.12 Summary of Results for Improving Visual Content
-
Almost half of the participants felt strangeness to varying degrees regarding the lateral deviation due to proactive steering intervention between the self vehicle and a parked car due to the lateral offset.
-
All participants evaluated neutrally or positively for the necessity of safety confirmation before proactive steering intervention.
-
The meaning of a single piece of provided content could be interpreted via intent understanding in this study. In visual content showing the system status including the end timing, some improvements in implementation were deemed necessary.
-
The single visual content component may be partially interpreted also as non-intended meanings via corresponding conjecture.
-
Although the combined use of multiple visual content components could convey the meaning to almost all participants, one participant, whose DSQ and WSQ scores regarding the perception of traffic environment were higher than average evaluated negatively due to information overload.
-
Simultaneously providing various visual content components creates the possibility of disturbing users while driving.
-
Although providing visual content basically could make users feel benefits of the system, information overload prevented them from perceiving the benefits.
-
Providing various visual content components could basically make users trust the system. Regarding negative evaluations for the combined use of multiple visual content components, modification for simplifying visual content for a planned path can possibly improve the current evaluations.
-
Displaying visual content can possibly reduce the feeling of strangeness between a user’s natural driving and proactive steering intervention.
5 Conclusions
-
Information sharing helped elderly drivers understand the behavior of the proactive steering system.
-
The design of visual content based on corresponding conjecture will contribute to the reduction of unnecessary visual content.