Objective: The feasibility of measuring drivers’ automation trust via gaze behavior during highly automated driving was assessed with eye tracking and validated with self-reported automation trust in a driving simulator study. Background: Earlier research from other domains indicates that drivers’ automation trust might be inferred from gaze behavior, such as monitoring frequency. Method: The gaze behavior and self-reported automation trust of 35 participants attending to a visually demanding non-driving-related task (NDRT) during highly automated driving was evaluated. The relationship between dispositional, situational, and learned automation trust with gaze behavior was compared. Results: Overall, there was a consistent relationship between drivers’ automation trust and gaze behavior. Participants reporting higher automation trust tended to monitor the automation less frequently. Further analyses revealed that higher automation trust was associated with lower monitoring frequency of the automation during NDRTs, and an increase in trust over the experimental session was connected with a decrease in monitoring frequency. Conclusion: We suggest that (a) the current results indicate a negative relationship between drivers’ self-reported automation trust and monitoring frequency, (b) gaze behavior provides a more direct measure of automation trust than other behavioral measures, and (c) with further refinement, drivers’ automation trust during highly automated driving might be inferred from gaze behavior. Application: Potential applications of this research include the estimation of drivers’ automation trust and reliance during highly automated driving.

Objective: The objective for this study was to investigate the effects of prior familiarization with takeover requests (TORs) during conditional automated driving on drivers’ initial takeover performance and automation trust. Background: System-initiated TORs are one of the biggest concerns for conditional automated driving and have been studied extensively in the past. Most, but not all, of these studies have included training sessions to familiarize participants with TORs. This makes them hard to compare and might obscure first-failure-like effects on takeover performance and automation trust formation. Method: A driving simulator study compared drivers’ takeover performance in two takeover situations across four prior familiarization groups (no familiarization, description, experience, description and experience) and automation trust before and after experiencing the system. Results: As hypothesized, prior familiarization with TORs had a more positive effect on takeover performance in the first than in a subsequent takeover situation. In all groups, automation trust increased after participants experienced the system. Participants who were given no prior familiarization with TORs reported highest automation trust both before and after experiencing the system. Conclusion: The current results extend earlier findings suggesting that prior familiarization with TORs during conditional automated driving will be most relevant for takeover performance in the first takeover situation and that it lowers drivers’ automation trust. Application: Potential applications of this research include different approaches to familiarize users with automated driving systems, better integration of earlier findings, and sophistication of experimental designs.

Automated driving systems (ADS) and a combination of these with advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) will soon be available to a large consumer population. Apart from testing automated driving features and human–machine interfaces (HMI), the development and evaluation of training for interacting with driving automation has been largely neglected. The present work outlines the conceptual development of two possible approaches of user education which are the owner’s manual and an interactive tutorial. These approaches are investigated by comparing them to a baseline consisting of generic information about the system function. Using a between-subjects design, N = 24 participants complete one training prior to interacting with the ADS HMI in a driving simulator. Results show that both the owner’s manual and an interactive tutorial led to an increased understanding of driving automation systems as well as an increased interaction performance. This work contributes to method development for the evaluation of ADS by proposing two alternative approaches of user education and their implications for both application in realistic settings and HMI testing.

Research on external human–machine interfaces (eHMIs) has recently become a major area of interest in the field of human factors research on automated driving. The broad variety of methodological approaches renders the current state of research inconclusive and comparisons between interface designs impossible. To date, there are no standardized test procedures to evaluate and compare different design variants of eHMIs with each other and with interactions without eHMIs. This article presents a standardized test procedure that enables the effective usability evaluation of eHMI design solutions. First, the test procedure provides a methodological approach to deduce relevant use cases for the evaluation of an eHMI. In addition, we define specific usability requirements that must be fulfilled by an eHMI to be effective, efficient, and satisfying. To prove whether an eHMI meets the defined requirements, we have developed a test protocol for the empirical evaluation of an eHMI with a participant study. The article elucidates underlying considerations and details of the test protocol that serves as framework to measure the behavior and subjective evaluations of non-automated road users when interacting with automated vehicles in an experimental setting. The standardized test procedure provides a useful framework for researchers and practitioners.

Objective: The human–machine interface (HMI) is a crucial part of every automated driving system (ADS). In the near future, it is likely that—depending on the operational design domain (ODD)—different levels of automation will be available within the same vehicle. The capabilities of a given automation level as well as the operator’s responsibilities must be communicated in an appropriate way. To date, however, there are no agreed-upon evaluation methods that can be used by human factors practitioners as well as researchers to test this. Methods: We developed an iterative test procedure that can be applied during the product development cycle of ADS. The test procedure is specifically designed to evaluate whether minimum requirements as proposed in NHTSA’s automated vehicle policy are met. Results: The proposed evaluation protocol includes (a) a method to identify relevant use cases for testing on the basis of all theoretically possible steady states and mode transitions of a given ADS; (b) an expert-based heuristic assessment to evaluate whether the HMI complies with applicable norms, standards, and best practices; and (c) an empirical evaluation of ADS HMIs using a standardized design for user studies and performance metrics. Conclusions: Each can be used as a stand-alone method or in combination to generate objective, reliable, and valid evaluations of HMIs, focusing on whether they meet minimum requirements. However, we also emphasize that other evaluation aspects such as controllability, misuse, and acceptance are not within the scope of the evaluation protocol.