The task of car driving is automated to an ever greater extent. In the foreseeable future, drivers will no longer be required to touch the steering wheel and pedals and could engage in non-driving tasks such as working or resting. Vibrotactile displays have the potential to grab the attention of the driver when the automation reaches its functional limits and the driver has to take over control. The aim of the present literature survey is to outline the key physiological and psychophysical aspects of vibrotactile sensation and to provide recommendations and relevant research questions regarding the use of vibrotactile displays for taking over control from an automated vehicle. Results showed that a distinction can be made between four dimensions for coding vibrotactile information (amplitude, frequency, timing, and location), each of which can be static or dynamic. There is a consensus that frequency and amplitude are less suitable for coding information than location and timing. Vibrotactile stimuli have been shown to be effective as simple warnings. However, vibrations can evoke annoyance, and providing vibrations in close spatial-temporal proximity might cause a lack of comprehension of the signal. We describe the sequential stages of a take-over process and argue that vibrotactile displays are a promising candidate for redirecting the attention of a distracted driver. Furthermore, vibrotactile displays hold potential for supporting cognitive processing and action selection while resuming control of an automated vehicle. Finally, we argue that multimodal feedback should be used to assist the driver in the take-over process.@en

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare continuous versus bandwidth haptic steering guidance in terms of lane-keeping behavior, aftereffects, and satisfaction. Background: An important human factors question is whether operators should be supported continuously or only when tolerance limits are exceeded. We aimed to clarify this issue for haptic steering guidance by investigating costs and benefits of both approaches in a driving simulator. Methods: Thirty-two participants drove five trials, each with a different level of haptic support: no guidance (Manual); guidance outside a 0.5-m bandwidth (Band1); a hysteresis version of Band1, which guided back to the lane center once triggered (Band2); continuous guidance (Cont); and Cont with double feedback gain (ContS). Participants performed a reaction time task while driving. Toward the end of each trial, the guidance was unexpectedly disabled to investigate aftereffects. Results: All four guidance systems prevented large lateral errors (>0.7 m). Cont and especially ContS yielded smaller lateral errors and higher time to line crossing than Manual, Band1, and Band2. Cont and ContS yielded short-lasting aftereffects, whereas Band1 and Band2 did not. Cont yielded higher self-reported satisfaction and faster reaction times than Band1. Conclusions: Continuous and bandwidth guidance both prevent large driver errors. Continuous guidance yields improved performance and satisfaction over bandwidth guidance at the cost of aftereffects and variability in driver torque (indicating human–automation conflicts). Application: The presented results are useful for designers of haptic guidance systems and support critical thinking about the costs and benefits of automation support systems.@en

A large number of haptic driver support systems have been described in the scientific literature. However, there is little consensus regarding the design, evaluation methods, and effectiveness of these systems. This literature survey aimed to investigate: (1) what haptic systems (in terms of function, haptic signal, channel, and supported task) have been experimentally tested, (2) how these haptic systems have been evaluated, and (3) their reported effects on driver performance and behaviour. We reviewed empirical research in which participants had to drive a vehicle in a real or simulated environment, were able to control the heading and/or speed of the vehicle, and a haptic signal was provided to them. The results indicated that a clear distinction can be made between warning systems (using vibrations) and guidance systems (using continuous forces). Studies typically used reaction time measures for evaluating warning systems and vehicle-centred performance measures for evaluating guidance systems. In general, haptic warning systems reduced the reaction time of a driver compared to no warnings, although these systems may cause annoyance. Guidance systems generally improved the performance of drivers compared to non-aided driving, but these systems may suffer from after-effects. Longitudinal research is needed to investigate the transfer and retention of effects caused by haptic support systems.@en