Overtaking on two-lane roads can lead to increased collision risks due to drivers' errors in evaluating whether or not to accept the gap to the vehicle in the opposite lane. Understanding these gap acceptance decisions can help mitigate the risks associated with overtaking. Previous research on overtaking has focused on the factors influencing gap acceptance decisions. However, the cognitive processes underlying gap acceptance decisions remain poorly understood. Previous studies have shown that response time (i.e. the time it takes the driver to evaluate the gap and make a decision) can provide valuable insights into the cognitive processes during gap acceptance decisions, in particular in pedestrian crossing and left turn decisions. However, the more complex nature of the overtaking maneuver renders it difficult to measure response times in overtaking. As a result, response times in overtaking have not been investigated, thereby limiting our understanding of overtaking behavior. To address this gap, in this paper we propose a method to measure response time in drivers' overtaking decisions and demonstrate this method in a driving simulator experiment (N=25). Specifically, we analyzed the effect of distance to the oncoming vehicle and speed of the ego vehicle on response time in accepted and rejected gaps. We found that response times for rejected gaps were on average longer than for accepted gaps. The response times increased with the distance gap and decreased with the initial velocity of the ego vehicle. We conclude that using the proposed method for measuring response time can give insight in the way drivers make gap acceptance decisions during overtaking. These results provide basis for cognitive process models that can help further understand overtaking decisions.

Modelling causal responsibility in multi-agent spatial interactions is crucial for safety and efficiency of interactions of humans with autonomous agents. However, current formal metrics and models of responsibility either lack grounding in ethical and philosophical concepts of responsibility, or cannot be applied to spatial interactions. In this work we propose a metric of causal responsibility which is tailored to multi-agent spatial interactions, for instance interactions in traffic. In such interactions, a given agent can, by reducing another agent's feasible action space, influence the latter. Therefore, we propose feasible action space reduction (FeAR) as a metric of causal responsibility among agents. Specifically, we look at ex-post causal responsibility for simultaneous actions. We propose the use of Moves de Rigueur (MdR) - a consistent set of prescribed actions for agents - to model the effect of norms on responsibility allocation. We apply the metric in a grid world simulation for spatial interactions and show how the actions, contexts, and norms affect the causal responsibility ascribed to agents. Finally, we demonstrate the application of this metric in complex multi-agent interactions. We argue that the FeAR metric is a step towards an interdisciplinary framework for quantifying responsibility that is needed to ensure safety and meaningful human control in human-AI systems.

Objective: We aim to bridge the gap between naturalistic studies of driver behavior and modern cognitive and neuroscientific accounts of decision making by modeling the cognitive processes underlying left-turn gap acceptance by human drivers. Background: Understanding decisions of human drivers is essential for the development of safe and efficient transportation systems. Current models of decision making in drivers provide little insight into the underlying cognitive processes. On the other hand, laboratory studies of abstract, highly controlled tasks point towards noisy evidence accumulation as a key mechanism governing decision making. However, it is unclear whether the cognitive processes implicated in these tasks are as paramount to decisions that are ingrained in more complex behaviors, such as driving. Results: The drivers’ probability of accepting the available gap increased with the size of the gap; importantly, response time increased with time gap but not distance gap. The generalized drift-diffusion model explained the observed decision outcomes and response time distributions, as well as substantial individual differences in those. Through cross-validation, we demonstrate that the model not only explains the data, but also generalizes to out-of-sample conditions. Conclusion: Our results suggest that dynamic evidence accumulation is an essential mechanism underlying left-turn gap acceptance decisions in human drivers, and exemplify how simple cognitive process models can help to understand human behavior in complex real-world tasks. Application: Potential applications of our results include real-time prediction of human behavior by automated vehicles and simulating realistic human-like behaviors in virtual environments for automated vehicles.

Purpose: The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the social and cognitive underpinnings of miscommunication during an interactive listening task. Method: An eye and computer mouse-tracking visualworld paradigm was used to investigate how a listener’s cognitive effort (local and global) and decision-making processes were affected by a speaker’s use of ambiguity that led to a miscommunication. Results: Experiments 1 and 2 found that an environmental cue that made a miscommunication more or less salient impacted listener language processing effort (eye-tracking). Experiment 2 also indicated that listeners may develop different processing heuristics dependent upon the speaker’s use of ambiguity that led to a miscommunication, exerting a significant impact on cognition and decision making. We also found that perspective-taking effort and decision-making complexity metrics (computer mouse tracking) predict language processing effort, indicating that instances of miscommunication produced cognitive consequences of indecision, thinking, and cognitive pull. Conclusion: Together, these results indicate that listeners behave both reciprocally and adaptively when miscommunications occur, but the way they respond is largely dependent upon the type of ambiguity and how often it is produced by the speaker.

Multimodal integration is an important process in perceptual decision-making. In humans, this process has often been shown to be statistically optimal, or near optimal: sensory information is combined in a fashion that minimizes the average error in perceptual representation of stimuli. However, sometimes there are costs that come with the optimization, manifesting as illusory percepts. We review audio-visual facilitations and illusions that are products of multisensory integration, and the computational models that account for these phenomena. In particular, the same optimal computational model can lead to illusory percepts, and we suggest that more studies should be needed to detect and mitigate these illusions, as artifacts in artificial cognitive systems. We provide cautionary considerations when designing artificial cognitive systems with the view of avoiding such artifacts. Finally, we suggest avenues of research toward solutions to potential pitfalls in system design. We conclude that detailed understanding of multisensory integration and the mechanisms behind audio-visual illusions can benefit the design of artificial cognitive systems.