No Difference in Arousal or Cognitive Demands Between Manual and Partially Automated Driving: A Multi-Method On-Road Study

Reliable but multi-dimensional cognitive demand in operating partially automated vehicles: implications for real-world automation research

The reliability of cognitive demand measures in controlled laboratory settings is well-documented; however, limited research has directly established their stability under real-life and high-stakes conditions, such as operating automated technology on actual highways. Partially automated vehicles have advanced to become an everyday mode of transportation, and research on driving these advanced vehicles requires reliable tools for evaluating the cognitive demand on motorists to sustain optimal engagement in the driving process. This study examined the reliability of five cognitive demand measures, while participants operated partially automated vehicles on real roads across four occasions. Seventy-one participants (aged 18-64 years) drove on actual highways while their heart rate, heart rate variability, electroencephalogram (EEG) alpha power, and behavioral performance on the Detection Response Task were measured simultaneously. Findings revealed that EEG alpha power had excellent test-retest reliability, heart rate and its variability were good, and Detection Response Task reaction time and hit-rate had moderate reliabilities. Thus, the current study addresses concerns regarding the reliability of these measures in assessing cognitive demand in real-world automation research, as acceptable test-retest reliabilities were found across all measures for drivers across occasions. Despite the high reliability of each measure, low intercorrelations among measures were observed, and internal consistency was better when cognitive demand was estimated as a multi-factorial construct. This suggests that they tap into different aspects of cognitive demand while operating automation in real life. The findings highlight that a combination of psychophysiological and behavioral methods can reliably capture multi-faceted cognitive demand in real-world automation research.

This Is Your Brain on Autopilot 2.0: The Influence of Practice on Driver Workload and Engagement During On-Road, Partially Automated Driving

OBJECTIVE

This on-road study employed behavioral and neurophysiological measurement techniques to assess the influence of six weeks of practice driving a Level 2 partially automated vehicle on driver workload and engagement.

BACKGROUND

Level 2 partial automation requires a driver to maintain supervisory control of the vehicle to detect "edge cases" that the automation is not equipped to handle. There is mixed evidence regarding whether drivers can do so effectively. There is also an open question regarding how practice and familiarity with automation influence driver cognitive states over time.

METHOD

Behavioral and neurophysiological measures of driver workload and visual engagement were recorded from 30 participants at two testing sessions-with a six-week familiarization period in-between. At both testing sessions, participants drove a vehicle with partial automation engaged (Level 2) and not engaged (Level 0) on two interstate highways while reaction times to the detection response task (DRT) and neurophysiological (EEG) metrics of frontal theta and parietal alpha were recorded.

RESULTS

DRT results demonstrated that partially automated driving placed more cognitive load on drivers than manual driving and six weeks of practice decreased driver workload-though only when the driving environment was relatively simple. EEG metrics of frontal theta and parietal alpha showed null effects of partial automation.

CONCLUSION

Driver workload was influenced by level of automation, specific highway characteristics, and by practice over time, but only on a behavioral level and not on a neural level.

APPLICATION

These findings expand our understanding of the influence of practice on driver cognitive states under Level 2 partial automation.