% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@PHDTHESIS{Josten:817292,
author = {Josten, Johanna},
othercontributors = {Ziefle, Martina and Eckstein, Lutz},
title = {{U}ser and system within the context of use - how users
cope with partial automation},
school = {Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen},
type = {Dissertation},
address = {Aachen},
publisher = {RWTH Aachen University},
reportid = {RWTH-2021-03825},
pages = {1 Online-Ressource : Illustrationen, Diagramme},
year = {2020},
note = {Veröffentlicht auf dem Publikationsserver der RWTH Aachen
University 2021; Dissertation, Rheinisch-Westfälische
Technische Hochschule Aachen, 2020},
abstract = {In partial automation, the system takes over the active
execution of the driving task in defined contexts of use,
but relies on the driver to supervise both the environment
and the system’s behaviour within the current driving
situation. Currently, the driver has to supervise automation
with hands on the steering wheel. While haptic feedback from
the system has been considered beneficial for staying in the
loop during automation use, hands-on supervision of
automation has also been shown to reduce the comfort of use.
This discrepancy between an assumed increase in the safety
of use and a satisfying system design from a user
perspective gave rise to investigations verifying the
benefit of continuous hands-on supervision during automation
use. A comprehensive analysis of users’ interaction with
partial automation from initial contact to the repeated
handling of control transitions was pursued in this work,
with a focus on the role of haptic feedback. By variation of
contexts of use, levels of user experience, abstraction
levels of the driving task and in separate analyses for
different interaction phases, the relevance of haptic
feedback and the stability of its influence were assessed.
In addition to performance after takeover requests, the
investigation of post-automation driving performance
constituted an exploratory focus in this work. Results from
the a priori assessment of automation in a survey and
automation use in four driving simulator studies were
contrasted with a posteriori assessments and automation use
in a test track study. Overall, hands-off monitoring was
perceived as more comfortable. However, hands-on monitoring
benefitted the supervision of automation and resulted
predominantly in faster, more controlled transitions. The
differences between the two feedback conditions were however
small. Only monitoring quality, but not takeover timing
differed between driving contexts. Post-automation driving
performance reached manual performance levels shortly after
control transitions. Differences between conditions were
smaller on the test track and performance in transitions was
more controlled than in the simulator studies. In general,
the effects of automation in comparison to manual driving
outweighed the influence of haptic feedback during
automation use for subjective, gaze and performance metrics.
For future studies, the voluntary choice for hands-off
supervision and secondary task engagement under
consideration of users’ mental models might provide
further insights into the relevance of haptic feedback
during use of partial automation.},
cin = {792310 / 414110},
ddc = {300},
cid = {$I:(DE-82)735410_20230123$ / $I:(DE-82)414110_20140620$},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)11},
doi = {10.18154/RWTH-2021-03825},
url = {https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/817292},
}
guest ::