Test procedure for evaluating the human–machine interface of vehicles with automated driving systems. (12th June 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Naujoks, Frederik; Hergeth, Sebastian; Wiedemann, Katharina; Schömig, Nadja; Forster, Yannick; Keinath, Andreas
• Is Part Of: Traffic injury prevention. Volume 20(2019)Suppement 1
• Page Start: S146
• Page End: S151
• Publication Date: 2019-06-12
• Subjects: Automated driving -- human–machine interface -- human factors -- usability -- evaluation; Traffic safety -- Periodicals; Traffic accidents -- Periodicals; Wounds and injuries -- Prevention -- Periodicals; 363.125
• DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2019.1603374
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1538-9588

Abstract

Abstract: 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.