![](bg9.png)
als, which have to be considered when conducting an
examination related to the driver take-over task. This
is especially relevant for studies being conducted in
laboratory test environments (cf. Table 2). However,
the discussed aspects similarly apply to other driving
tasks.
To achieve comparability of the available stud-
ies examining the driver take-over task, researchers
should describe the stimulus materials provided to the
test person in the respective studies in detail in order
to support a comprehensive interpretation of their re-
sults. Therefore, especially when publishing results
obtained from using laboratory test environments, it is
recommended not only to describe the technical setup
itself, respectively how certain stimuli have been pro-
vided, but additionally provide details on why it has
been decided to tailor certain stimuli compared to
driving in a vehicle on public roads, if applicable.
Hence, this sets new demands on the documenta-
tion of studies conducted in this field.
6.3 Outlook
In a subsequent analysis, instructions about opera-
tions and instructions about goals provided to the test
person as part of the test method and -design have to
be examined in order to holistically understand poten-
tial influencing factors on the driver take-over task.
The differences between the objective task input
and the final outcome, as introduced in Figure 2 as er-
rors, can be categorized based on human error models
available in literature, which supports the understand-
ing of human interaction with automated driving sys-
tems. The ability to understand the origin of human
errors during the driver take-over task is essential dur-
ing the design phase of human-machine interfaces for
the driver take-over task.
Furthermore, the proposed models should be im-
plemented in existing studies in order to prove their
suitability. Following on from this, a generic guide-
line can be developed, which supports the planning,
execution and evaluation phase of studies.
To continue working on this aspect, a test specifi-
cation containing a common set of criteria, descriptive
categories and boundary conditions can be developed.
This can then be published as an appendix to the re-
spective studies in order to facilitate their comparabil-
ity leading to more resilient research results.
REFERENCES
Banks, V. A., Eriksson, A., O’Donoghue, J., and Stanton,
N. A. (2018). Is partially automated driving a bad
idea? Observations from an on-road study. Applied
Ergonomics, 68:138–145.
Banks, V. A. and Stanton, N. A. (2016). Keep the driver in
control: Automating automobiles of the future. Ap-
plied Ergonomics, 53(June):389–395.
Bubb, H., Bengler, K., Gr
¨
unen, R. E., and Vollrath, M.
(2015). Automobilergonomie. Springer Fachmedien
Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden.
Bundesanstalt f
¨
ur Straßenwesen (2012). Einflussfaktoren
auf das Fahrverhalten und das Unfallrisiko junger
Fahrerinnen und Fahrer. Berichte der Bundesanstalt
f
¨
ur Straßenwesen, Heft M 229(Mensch und Sicher-
heit).
Capallera, M., de Salis, E., Meteier, Q., Angelini, L., Car-
rino, S., Khaled, O. A., and Mugellini, E. (2019). Sec-
ondary task and situation awareness, a mobile applica-
tion for conditionally automated vehicles. In Proceed-
ings of the 11th International Conference on Auto-
motive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Ap-
plications: Adjunct Proceedings, pages 86–92, New
York, NY, USA. ACM.
Donges, E. (1982). Aspekte der Aktiven Sicherheit bei
der F
¨
uhrung von Personenkraftwagen. Automobil-
Industrie, 27:183–190.
Eriksson, A., Banks, V. A., and Stanton, N. A. (2017). Tran-
sition to manual: Comparing simulator with on-road
control transitions. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
102:227–234.
Eriksson, A. and Stanton, N. A. (2017). Takeover Time in
Highly Automated Vehicles: Noncritical Transitions
to and From Manual Control. Human Factors: The
Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Soci-
ety, 59(4):689–705.
Hackman, J. R. (1969). Toward understanding the role
of tasks in behavioral research. Acta Psychologica,
31:97–128.
Hartfiel, B., Kroys, A., Kruithof, N., and Stark, R. (2019).
Driving Simulator with VR Glasses for Evaluation of
New Interior Concepts. ATZ worldwide, 121(11):16–
23.
Jamson, A. H., Merat, N., Carsten, O. M., and Lai, F. C.
(2013). Behavioural changes in drivers experienc-
ing highly-automated vehicle control in varying traffic
conditions. Transportation Research Part C: Emerg-
ing Technologies, 30(May):116–125.
K
¨
ohn, T., Gottlieb, M., Schermann, M., and Krcmar, H.
(2019). Improving take-over quality in automated
driving by interrupting non-driving tasks. In Proceed-
ings of the 24th International Conference on Intelli-
gent User Interfaces, volume Part F1476, pages 510–
517, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Larsson, P., Johansson, E., S
¨
oderman, M., and Thomp-
son, D. (2015). Interaction Design for Communi-
cating System State and Capabilities during Auto-
mated Highway Driving. Procedia Manufacturing,
3(Ahfe):2784–2791.
Li, S., Blythe, P., Guo, W., Namdeo, A., Edwards, S., Good-
man, P., and Hill, G. (2019). Evaluation of the ef-
fects of age-friendly human-machine interfaces on the
CHIRA 2020 - 4th International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications
72