Zhang Wei, Zeng Yilin, Yang Zhen, Kang Chunyan, Wu Changxu, Shi Jinlei, Ma Shu, Li Hongting
Department of Psychology, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou, China.
Department of Industrial Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Front Psychol. 2021 Mar 8;12:601536. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.601536. eCollection 2021.
Conditional automated driving [level 3, Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)] requires drivers to take over the vehicle when an automated system's failure occurs or is about to leave its operational design domain. Two-stage warning systems, which warn drivers in two steps, can be a promising method to guide drivers in preparing for the takeover. However, the proper time intervals of two-stage warning systems that allow drivers with different personalities to prepare for the takeover remain unclear. This study explored the optimal time intervals of two-stage warning systems with insights into the drivers' neuroticism personality. A total of 32 drivers were distributed into two groups according to their self-ratings in neuroticism (high vs. low). Each driver experienced takeover under the two-stage warning systems with four time intervals (i.e., 3, 5, 7, and 9 s). The takeover performance (i.e., hands-on-steering-wheel time, takeover time, and maximum resulting acceleration) and subjective opinions (i.e., appropriateness and usefulness) for time intervals and situation awareness (SA) were recorded. The results showed that drivers in the 5-s time interval had the best takeover preparation (fast hands-on steering wheel responses and sufficient SA). Furthermore, both the 5- and 7-s time intervals resulted in more rapid takeover reactions and were rated more appropriate and useful than the 3- and 9-s time intervals. In terms of personality, drivers with high neuroticism tended to take over immediately after receiving takeover messages, at the cost of SA deficiency. In contrast, drivers with low neuroticism responded safely by judging whether they gained enough SA. We concluded that the 5-s time interval was optimal for drivers in two-stage takeover warning systems. When considering personality, drivers with low neuroticism had no strict requirements for time intervals. However, the extended time intervals were favorable for drivers with high neuroticism in developing SA. The present findings have reference implications for designers and engineers to set the time intervals of two-stage warning systems according to the neuroticism personality of drivers.
有条件自动驾驶（美国汽车工程师协会（SAE）定义的3级）要求驾驶员在自动系统发生故障或即将超出其运行设计域时接管车辆。分两步警告驾驶员的两阶段警告系统，可能是指导驾驶员为接管做好准备的一种很有前景的方法。然而，能让不同性格的驾驶员为接管做好准备的两阶段警告系统的适当时间间隔仍不明确。本研究通过深入了解驾驶员的神经质人格，探索了两阶段警告系统的最佳时间间隔。根据32名驾驶员的神经质自评（高神经质与低神经质）将他们分为两组。每位驾驶员在两阶段警告系统下经历了四种时间间隔（即3秒、5秒、7秒和9秒）的接管情况。记录了接管性能（即手握方向盘时间、接管时间和最大加速度）以及对时间间隔和态势感知（SA）的主观意见（即适当性和有用性）。结果表明，处于5秒时间间隔的驾驶员具有最佳的接管准备（手握方向盘反应迅速且态势感知充分）。此外，5秒和7秒时间间隔都能带来更快的接管反应，并且比3秒和9秒时间间隔的评价更适当、更有用。在性格方面，高神经质驾驶员倾向于在收到接管信息后立即接管，代价是态势感知不足。相比之下，低神经质驾驶员通过判断自己是否获得了足够的态势感知来安全响应。我们得出结论，5秒时间间隔对于两阶段接管警告系统中的驾驶员是最佳的。考虑到性格因素，低神经质驾驶员对时间间隔没有严格要求。然而，延长的时间间隔有利于高神经质驾驶员发展态势感知。本研究结果对设计师和工程师根据驾驶员的神经质人格设定两阶段警告系统的时间间隔具有参考意义。
