The comparison of auditory, tactile, and multimodal warnings for the effective communication of unexpected events during an automated driving scenario

Claudia Geitner, Francesco Biondi, Lee Skrypchuk, Paul Jennings, Stewart Birrell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In an automated car, users can fully engage in a distractor task, making it a primary task. Compared to manual driving, drivers can engage in tasks that are difficult to interrupt and of higher demand, the consequences can be a reduced perception of, and an impaired reaction to, warnings. In this study we compared three in-vehicle warnings (auditory, tactile, and auditory-tactile) which were presented during three highly attention capturing tasks (visual, auditory, and tactile) while the user was engaged in a self-driving car scenario, culminating in an emergency brake event where the warning was presented. The novel addition for this paper was that three set paced, attention capturing tasks, as well the three warnings were all designed in a pilot study to have comparable workload and noticeability. This enabled a direct comparison of human performance to be made between each of the attention capturing tasks, which are designed to occupy only one specific modality (auditory, visual or haptic), but remain similar in overall task demand. Results from the study showed reaction times to the tactile warning (for the emergency braking event) were significantly slower compared to the auditory and auditory-tactile (aka multimodal or multisensory) warning. Despite the similar reaction times between the in-vehicle auditory warning and the multimodal warning, the multimodal warning led to a reduced number of missed warnings and fewer false responses. However, the auditory and auditory-tactile warnings were rated significantly more startling than the tactile alone. Our results extend the literature regarding the performance benefits of multimodal warnings by comparing them with in-vehicle auditory warnings in an autonomous driving context. The set-pace attention capturing tasks in this study would be of interest to other researchers to evaluate the interaction in an automated driving context, particularly with hard to interrupt and attention capturing tasks.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)23-33
Number of pages11
JournalTransportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
Volume65
Early online date27 Jul 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2019
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Touch
Communication
scenario
event
communication
Railroad cars
Braking
Brakes
Reaction Time
Emergencies
demand
workload
performance
Workload
driver
Research Personnel
interaction
time

Keywords

  • Autonomous vehicle
  • Driver distraction
  • Multimodal warning
  • Tactile warning
  • Take-over of automation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Civil and Structural Engineering
  • Automotive Engineering
  • Transportation
  • Applied Psychology

Cite this

The comparison of auditory, tactile, and multimodal warnings for the effective communication of unexpected events during an automated driving scenario. / Geitner, Claudia; Biondi, Francesco; Skrypchuk, Lee; Jennings, Paul; Birrell, Stewart.

In: Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 65, 01.08.2019, p. 23-33.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{095dbced82d94efebe75d63dfa3c6495,
title = "The comparison of auditory, tactile, and multimodal warnings for the effective communication of unexpected events during an automated driving scenario",
abstract = "In an automated car, users can fully engage in a distractor task, making it a primary task. Compared to manual driving, drivers can engage in tasks that are difficult to interrupt and of higher demand, the consequences can be a reduced perception of, and an impaired reaction to, warnings. In this study we compared three in-vehicle warnings (auditory, tactile, and auditory-tactile) which were presented during three highly attention capturing tasks (visual, auditory, and tactile) while the user was engaged in a self-driving car scenario, culminating in an emergency brake event where the warning was presented. The novel addition for this paper was that three set paced, attention capturing tasks, as well the three warnings were all designed in a pilot study to have comparable workload and noticeability. This enabled a direct comparison of human performance to be made between each of the attention capturing tasks, which are designed to occupy only one specific modality (auditory, visual or haptic), but remain similar in overall task demand. Results from the study showed reaction times to the tactile warning (for the emergency braking event) were significantly slower compared to the auditory and auditory-tactile (aka multimodal or multisensory) warning. Despite the similar reaction times between the in-vehicle auditory warning and the multimodal warning, the multimodal warning led to a reduced number of missed warnings and fewer false responses. However, the auditory and auditory-tactile warnings were rated significantly more startling than the tactile alone. Our results extend the literature regarding the performance benefits of multimodal warnings by comparing them with in-vehicle auditory warnings in an autonomous driving context. The set-pace attention capturing tasks in this study would be of interest to other researchers to evaluate the interaction in an automated driving context, particularly with hard to interrupt and attention capturing tasks.",
keywords = "Autonomous vehicle, Driver distraction, Multimodal warning, Tactile warning, Take-over of automation",
author = "Claudia Geitner and Francesco Biondi and Lee Skrypchuk and Paul Jennings and Stewart Birrell",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.trf.2019.06.011",
language = "English",
volume = "65",
pages = "23--33",
journal = "Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour",
issn = "1369-8478",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The comparison of auditory, tactile, and multimodal warnings for the effective communication of unexpected events during an automated driving scenario

AU - Geitner, Claudia

AU - Biondi, Francesco

AU - Skrypchuk, Lee

AU - Jennings, Paul

AU - Birrell, Stewart

PY - 2019/8/1

Y1 - 2019/8/1

N2 - In an automated car, users can fully engage in a distractor task, making it a primary task. Compared to manual driving, drivers can engage in tasks that are difficult to interrupt and of higher demand, the consequences can be a reduced perception of, and an impaired reaction to, warnings. In this study we compared three in-vehicle warnings (auditory, tactile, and auditory-tactile) which were presented during three highly attention capturing tasks (visual, auditory, and tactile) while the user was engaged in a self-driving car scenario, culminating in an emergency brake event where the warning was presented. The novel addition for this paper was that three set paced, attention capturing tasks, as well the three warnings were all designed in a pilot study to have comparable workload and noticeability. This enabled a direct comparison of human performance to be made between each of the attention capturing tasks, which are designed to occupy only one specific modality (auditory, visual or haptic), but remain similar in overall task demand. Results from the study showed reaction times to the tactile warning (for the emergency braking event) were significantly slower compared to the auditory and auditory-tactile (aka multimodal or multisensory) warning. Despite the similar reaction times between the in-vehicle auditory warning and the multimodal warning, the multimodal warning led to a reduced number of missed warnings and fewer false responses. However, the auditory and auditory-tactile warnings were rated significantly more startling than the tactile alone. Our results extend the literature regarding the performance benefits of multimodal warnings by comparing them with in-vehicle auditory warnings in an autonomous driving context. The set-pace attention capturing tasks in this study would be of interest to other researchers to evaluate the interaction in an automated driving context, particularly with hard to interrupt and attention capturing tasks.

AB - In an automated car, users can fully engage in a distractor task, making it a primary task. Compared to manual driving, drivers can engage in tasks that are difficult to interrupt and of higher demand, the consequences can be a reduced perception of, and an impaired reaction to, warnings. In this study we compared three in-vehicle warnings (auditory, tactile, and auditory-tactile) which were presented during three highly attention capturing tasks (visual, auditory, and tactile) while the user was engaged in a self-driving car scenario, culminating in an emergency brake event where the warning was presented. The novel addition for this paper was that three set paced, attention capturing tasks, as well the three warnings were all designed in a pilot study to have comparable workload and noticeability. This enabled a direct comparison of human performance to be made between each of the attention capturing tasks, which are designed to occupy only one specific modality (auditory, visual or haptic), but remain similar in overall task demand. Results from the study showed reaction times to the tactile warning (for the emergency braking event) were significantly slower compared to the auditory and auditory-tactile (aka multimodal or multisensory) warning. Despite the similar reaction times between the in-vehicle auditory warning and the multimodal warning, the multimodal warning led to a reduced number of missed warnings and fewer false responses. However, the auditory and auditory-tactile warnings were rated significantly more startling than the tactile alone. Our results extend the literature regarding the performance benefits of multimodal warnings by comparing them with in-vehicle auditory warnings in an autonomous driving context. The set-pace attention capturing tasks in this study would be of interest to other researchers to evaluate the interaction in an automated driving context, particularly with hard to interrupt and attention capturing tasks.

KW - Autonomous vehicle

KW - Driver distraction

KW - Multimodal warning

KW - Tactile warning

KW - Take-over of automation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85069847909&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.trf.2019.06.011

DO - 10.1016/j.trf.2019.06.011

M3 - Article

VL - 65

SP - 23

EP - 33

JO - Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

JF - Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

SN - 1369-8478

ER -