Effects of Driver Response Time Under Take-Over Control Based on CAR-ToC Model in Human–Machine Mixed Traffic Flow
Tóm tắt
The take-over control (ToC) of human–machine interaction is a hotspot. From automatic driving to manual driving, some factors affecting driver response time have not been considered in existing models, and little attention has been paid to its effects on mixed traffic flow. This study establishes a ToC model of response based on adaptive control of thought-rational cognitive architecture (CAR-ToC) to investigate the effects of driver response time on traffic flow. A quantification method of driver’s situation cognition uncertainty is also proposed. This method can directly describe the cognitive effect of drivers with different cognitive characteristics on vehicle cluster situations. The results show that when driver response time in ToC is 4.2 s, the traffic state is the best. The greater the response time is, the more obvious the stop-and-go waves exhibit. Besides, crashes happen when manual vehicles hit other types of vehicles in ToC. Effects of driver response time on traffic are illustrated and verified from various aspects. Experiments are designed to verify that road efficiency and safety are increased by using a dynamic take-over strategy. Further, internal causes of effects are revealed and suggestions are discussed for the safety and efficiency of autonomous vehicles.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Biddle, L., Fallah, S.: A novel fault detection, identification and prediction approach for autonomous vehicle controllers using svm. Automot. Innov. 4(3), 301–314 (2021)
Gold, C., Körber, M., Hohenberger, C., et al.: Trust in automation – before and after the experience of take-over scenarios in a highly automated vehicle. Procedia Manuf. 3, 3025–3032 (2015)
Deo, N., Trivedi, M.M.: Looking at the driver/rider in autonomous vehicles to predict take-over readiness. IEEE T. Intell. Veh. 5(1), 41–52 (2020)
Jin, M., Lu, G., Chen, F., et al.: Modeling takeover behavior in level 3 automated driving via a structural equation model: considering the mediating role of trust. Accid. Anal. Prev. 157(1), 106–156 (2021)
Peng, L., Wang, H., Li, J.: Uncertainty evaluation of object detection algorithms for autonomous vehicles. Automot. Innov. 4(3), 12 (2021)
Li, Q., Wang, Z., Wang, W., et al.: An adaptive time budget adjustment strategy based on a take-over performance model for passive fatigue. IEEE T. Hum.-Mach. Syst. 52(5), 1025-1035 (2021)
Favarò, F., Eurich, S., Nader, N.: Autonomous vehicles’ disengagements: Trends, triggers, and regulatory limitations. Accid. Anal. Prev. 110(1), 136–148 (2018)
Gla, B., Yy, A., Tz, A., et al.: Risk assessment based collision avoidance decision-making for autonomous vehicles in multi-scenarios. Transp. Res. Pt. C-Emerg. Technol. 122, 1–17 (2021)
Körber, M., Weißgerber, T., Kalb, L., et al.: Prediction of take-over time in highly automated driving by two psychometric tests. Dyna 82(193), 195–201 (2015)
Gold, C., Damböck, D., Lorenz, L., et al.: “Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop? Proc. Hum. Fact. Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet 57(1), 1938–1942 (2013)
Melcher, V., Rauh, S., Diederichs, F., et al.: Take-over requests for automated driving. Procedia Manuf. 3, 2867–2873 (2015)
Stanton, N.A., Young, M.S.: A proposed psychological model of driving automation. Theor. Iss. Ergon. Sci. 1, 315–331 (2000)
Heikoop, D.D.: Psychological constructs in driving automation: a consensus model and critical comment on construct proliferation. Theor. Iss. Ergon. Sci. 17, 284–303 (2016)
Körber, M., Cingel, A., Zimmermann, M., et al.: Vigilance decrement and passive fatigue caused by monotony in automated driving. Procedia Manuf. 3, 2403–2409 (2015)
Körber, M., Gold, C., Lechner, D., et al.: The influence of age on the take-over of vehicle control in highly automated driving. Transp. Res. Pt. F-Traffic Psychol. Behav. 39, 19–32 (2016)
Hergeth, S., Lorenz, L., Vilimek, R., et al.: Keep your scanners peeled: gaze behavior as a measure of automation trust during highly automated driving. Hum. Factors 58(3), 509–519 (2016)
Wan, J., Wu, C.: The effects of lead time of take-over request and nondriving tasks on taking-over control of automated vehicles. IEEE T. Hum. Mach. Syst. 48(6), 582–591 (2018)
Horrey, W.J., Lesch, M.F., Garabet, A., et al.: Distraction and task engagement: How interesting and boring information impact driving performance and subjective and physiological responses. Appl. Ergon. 58, 342–348 (2017)
Zhang, B., de Winter, J., Varotto, S., et al.: Determinants of take-over time from automated driving: a meta-analysis of 129 studies. Transp. Res. Pt. F-Traffic Psychol. Behav. 64, 285–307 (2019)
Sun, Z., Zhang, J., Liu, M., et al.: Impact of the time-variant response time of driver on traffic flow oscillations and car-following safety. In: 20th COTA International Conference of Transportation Professionals (2020)
Zhao, Y., Liang, J., Chen, L., et al.: Evaluation and prediction of free driving behavior type based on fuzzy comprehensive support vector machine. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 42(4), 2863–2879 (2022)
Zhao, Y.C., Liang, J., Chen, L., et al.: Driving rule extraction based on cognitive behavior analysis. J. Cent. South Univ. 27(1), 164–179 (2020)
Borst, J.P., Anderson, J.R.: A step-by-step tutorial on using the cognitive architecture act-r in combination with fmri data. J. Math. Psychol. 76, 94–103 (2017)
P Ee Bles, D., Banks, A.: Modelling dynamic decision making with the act-r cognitive architecture. J. Artif. Gener. Intell. 2(2), 52–68 (2010)
Prb, A., Oao, D., Bbg, B., et al.: A distraction index for quantification of driver eye glance behavior: a study using shrp2 nest database-sciencedirect. Saf. Sci. 119, 106–111 (2019)
Sheu, J.B., Wu, H.J.: Driver perception uncertainty in perceived relative speed and reaction time in car following–a quantum optical flow perspective. Transp. Res. Pt. B-Methodol. 80(10), 257–274 (2015)
Gosal, A.S., Giannichi, M.L., Beckmann, M., et al.: Do drivers of nature visitation vary spatially? The importance of context for understanding visitation of nature areas in europe and north america. Sci. Total Environ. 776, 145190 (2021)
Fisher, C.R., Houpt, J.W., Gunzelmann, G.: Developing memory-based models of act-r within a statistical framework. J. Math. Psychol. 98(4), 102416 (2020)
Zeeb, K., Buchner, A., Schrauf, M.: What determines the take-over time? An integrated model approach of driver take-over after automated driving. Accid. Anal. Prev. 78, 212–221 (2015)
Naujoks, F., Befelein, D., Wie De Mann, K., et al.: A review of non-driving-related tasks used in studies on automated driving. In: International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (2017)
Schaefer, K.E., Chen, J., Szalma, J.L., et al.: A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation. Hum. Factors 58(3), 377–400 (2016)
Nyberg, L., Ronnlund, et al.: Selective adult age differences in an age-invariant multifactor model of declarative memory. Psychol. Aging 18(1), 149-160 (2003)
De Rson, J.R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M., et al.: An integrated theory of the mind. Psychol. Rev. 111(4), 1036–1060 (2004)
Quante, L., Zhang, M., Preuk, K., et al.: Human performance in critical scenarios as a benchmark for highly automated vehicles. Automot. Innov. 4(3), 10 (2021)
Petermeijer, S.M., Winter, J.C.F.D., Bengler, K.J.: Vibrotactile displays: a survey with a view on highly automated driving. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 17(4), 897–907 (2016)
Wang, X., Liu, Y., Guo, Y., et al.: Transformation mechanism of vehicle cluster situations under dynamic evolution of driver’s propensity. Transp. Res. Pt. F-Traffic Psychol. Behav. 65, 665–684 (2019)
Yu, B., Zhou, H., Wang, L., et al.: An extended two-lane car-following model considering the influence of heterogeneous speed information on drivers with different characteristics under honk environment. Physica A 587(3), 126022 (2021)
Tang, T.Q., Huang, H.J., Gao, Z.Y., et al.: Interactions of waves in the speed-gradient traffic flow model. Physica A 380, 481–489 (2007)
Meyer, M.A., Sauter, L., Granrath, C., et al.: Simulator coupled with distributed co-simulation protocol for automated driving tests. Automot. Innov. 4(4), 373–389 (2021)
Wolfe, B., Seppelt, B., Mehler, B., et al.: Rapid holistic perception and evasion of road hazards. J. Exp. Psychol.-Gen. 149(3), 490–500 (2020)
Kesting, A., Treiber, M., Schoenhof, M., et al.: Adaptive cruise control design for active congestion avoidance. Transp. Res. Pt. C-Emerg. Technol. 16(6), 668–683 (2008)
Treiber, M., Hennecke, A., Helbing, D.: Congested traffic states in empirical observations and microscopic simulations. Phys. Rev. E 62(2), 1805–1824 (2000)
Kesting, A., Treiber, M., Helbing, D.: Enhanced intelligent driver model to access the impact of driving strategies on traffic capacity. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 368(1928), 4585–4605 (2010)
Shladover, S., Su, D., Lu, X.Y.: Impacts of cooperative adaptive cruise control on freeway traffic flow. Transp. Res. Record 2324, 63–70 (2012)
Erdmann, J.: Sumo’s lane-changing model. Springer, Modeling Mobility with Open Data (2015)
Taiebat, M., Brown, A.L., Safford, H.R., et al.: A review on energy, environmental, and sustainability implications of connected and automated vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52(20), 11449–11465 (2018)
Mintsis, E., Koutras, D., Porfyri, K., et al.: Transaid deliverable 3.1- modelling, simulation and assessment of vehicle automations and automated vehicles' driver behaviour in mixed traffic. ResearchGate, Hellas (2019)
Shladover, S.E., Nowakowski, C., Lu, X.Y., et al.: Cooperative adaptive cruise control: definitions and operating concepts. Transp. Res. Record 2489(1), 145–152 (2016)