Automotive human–machine interface (HMI) design is facing new challenges due to the technological advances of the last decades. The design process has to be adapted in order to address human factors and road safety challenges. It is now widely accepted that user involvement in the HMI design process is valuable. However, the current form of user involvement in industry remains at the stages of concept assessment and usability tests. Moreover, the literature in other fields (e.g. information systems) promotes a broader user involvement with participatory design (i.e. the user is fully involved in the development process). This article reviews the established benefits of participatory design and reveals perspectives for automotive HMI quality improvement in a cognitive ergonomic framework. Practitioner Summary: Automotive HMI quality determines, in part, drivers’ ability to perform primary driving tasks while using in-vehicle devices. User involvement in the design process is a key point to contribute to HMI quality. This article reports the potential benefits of a broad involvement from drivers to meet automotive HMI design challenges.

This study puts forward a classification of driver lateral control assistance devices based on distinctions among several cooperative activities between the driver and the assistance devices. The proposed classification is based on prior work by Hoc, Young and Blosseville and Young, Stanton and Harris, who put forward related theoretical frameworks on human–machine cooperation with automation. The particular application here to lateral control allows for a human-centred categorisation of existing and potential (i.e. near-future) driver assistance devices. Four human–machine cooperation levels based on drivers' activities have been adopted. All of the proposed categories are reviewed in three steps. First, each device category is functionally defined. Next, the impact of the devices on driving behaviour is presented. A third part sums up the effectiveness of each assistance category, particularly with regard to accident data. The general conclusion synthesises the main insights for each human–machine category proposed and highlights a number of design recommendations.

Current theories on the role of visuomotor coordination in driving agree that active sampling of the road by the driver informs the arm-motor system in charge of performing actions on the steering wheel. Still under debate, however, is the nature of visual cues and gaze strategies used by drivers. In particular, the tangent point hypothesis, which states that drivers look at a specific point on the inside edge line, has recently become the object of controversy. An alternative hypothesis proposes that drivers orient gaze toward the desired future path, which happens to be often situated in the vicinity of the tangent point. The present study contributed to this debate through the analyses of the distribution of gaze orientation with respect to the tangent point. The results revealed that drivers sampled the roadway in the close vicinity of the tangent point rather than the tangent point proper. This supports the idea that drivers look at the boundary of a safe trajectory envelop near the inside edge line. Furthermore, the study investigated for the first time the reciprocal influence of manual control on gaze control in the context of driving. This was achieved through the comparison of gaze behavior when drivers actively steered the vehicle or when steering was performed by an automatic controller. The results showed an increase in look-ahead fixations in the direction of the bend exit and a small but consistent reduction in the time spent looking in the area of the tangent point when steering was passive. This may be the consequence of a change in the balance between cognitive and sensorimotor anticipatory gaze strategies. It might also reflect bidirectional coordination control between the eye and arm-motor systems, which goes beyond the common assumption that the eyes lead the hands when driving.