Citation

Reinmueller K, Kiesel A, Steinhauser M. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020; 146: e105718.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2020, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.aap.2020.105718

PMID

32847736

Abstract

Advanced driver assistance systems can effectively support drivers but can also induce unwanted effects in behavior. The present study investigates this adverse behavioral adaptation in adaptive Forward Collision Warning (FCW) systems. Other than conventional FCW systems that provide warnings based on static Time-To-Collision (TTC) thresholds, adaptive FCW systems consider the driver's need for support by adjusting warning thresholds according to distraction. A neglected question is how drivers adapt their behavior when they use adaptive FCW systems under realistic conditions, i.e., when warnings occur infrequently but system functionality is anticipated. Forty-eight participants drove with two different FCW systems (adaptive vs. non-adaptive) while working on a secondary in-vehicle task in a driving simulator. During the main part of the experiment, no brake events occurred and hence FCW functioning was largely anticipated. Additionally, visual system feedback about the driver's distraction state was manipulated between groups. Participants had significantly shorter minimal time-headways and TTCs when driving with the adaptive relative to the non-adaptive system. Participants with system feedback about distraction state spent generally more time with engaging in the secondary task. These results indicate behavioral adaptation which, however, is restricted to the task that is specifically supported by the system, namely longitudinal control.

Language: en

Keywords

driver distraction; driver behavior; behavioral adaptation; collision warning; driver monitoring