View in EDS

Decision support for partial automation: Driver behavior and trust with different versions of automated lane change.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Decision support for partial automation: Driver behavior and trust with different versions of automated lane change.
Authors: Monfort, Samuel S.1 (AUTHOR) smonfort@iihs.org, Kidd, David G.1 (AUTHOR), Cicchino, Jessica B.1 (AUTHOR), Mueller, Alexandra S.1 (AUTHOR), Reagan, Ian1 (AUTHOR), Gershon, Pnina2 (AUTHOR), Noonan, Zach2 (AUTHOR), Mehler, Bruce2 (AUTHOR), Reimer, Bryan2 (AUTHOR)
Source: Journal of Safety Research. Jun2026, Vol. 97, p712-723. 12p.
Subjects: Automation, Trust, Automobile drivers, Lane changing
Abstract: • Naturalistic study comparing manual and two forms of automated lane changes. • Automation shifted gaze from forward roadway and mirrors to the vehicle display. • System-initiated lane changes triggered earlier and longer off-road glances. • Automating decision selection may exacerbate driver overreliance. Introduction: Automated lane change systems allow drivers to receive support for maneuver execution and sometimes initiation. Research suggests that delegating action selection to automation can impair awareness and reduce readiness to intervene if automation fails. The current study was designed to compare manual lane changes with two automated variants: driver-initiated but system-executed, and system-initiated and -executed after driver confirmation. Method: Fourteen drivers were provided with instrumented Tesla Model 3s for a 4-week study period, during which video of the driver, the cabin, and the forward roadway, as well as data on vehicle speed and position were recorded. Automated lane changes were compared with manual lane changes, with each automated event matched to a similar manual one through stratified random sampling. Self-report questionnaires were administered at the conclusion of the study to examine drivers' subjective experiences. Results: Drivers undergoing both variants of automated lane changes appeared to use the information displayed on the vehicle's center stack as a replacement for directly observing the forward roadway. The system-initiated automated lane changes were unique, however, in that drivers exhibited even shorter glances to the side mirrors and more frequent cell phone use compared with the other control modes, as well as reduced on-road glance duration over the second half of the study period. We also found that driver mistrust increased the most when the vehicle canceled an automated lane change, with system cancellations predicting lower future system use and less positive subjective perceptions of the system overall. Conclusion: Findings clarify differences between automation that supports the execution of a maneuver compared with one that supports both initiation and execution. The latter may risk driver disengagement and insufficient automation verification behavior. Practical applications: Automakers and system designers should be cautious about implementing automated support for action selection without ensuring that drivers engage in sufficient oversight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Journal of Safety Research is the property of Pergamon Press - An Imprint of Elsevier Science and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Description
Abstract:• Naturalistic study comparing manual and two forms of automated lane changes. • Automation shifted gaze from forward roadway and mirrors to the vehicle display. • System-initiated lane changes triggered earlier and longer off-road glances. • Automating decision selection may exacerbate driver overreliance. Introduction: Automated lane change systems allow drivers to receive support for maneuver execution and sometimes initiation. Research suggests that delegating action selection to automation can impair awareness and reduce readiness to intervene if automation fails. The current study was designed to compare manual lane changes with two automated variants: driver-initiated but system-executed, and system-initiated and -executed after driver confirmation. Method: Fourteen drivers were provided with instrumented Tesla Model 3s for a 4-week study period, during which video of the driver, the cabin, and the forward roadway, as well as data on vehicle speed and position were recorded. Automated lane changes were compared with manual lane changes, with each automated event matched to a similar manual one through stratified random sampling. Self-report questionnaires were administered at the conclusion of the study to examine drivers' subjective experiences. Results: Drivers undergoing both variants of automated lane changes appeared to use the information displayed on the vehicle's center stack as a replacement for directly observing the forward roadway. The system-initiated automated lane changes were unique, however, in that drivers exhibited even shorter glances to the side mirrors and more frequent cell phone use compared with the other control modes, as well as reduced on-road glance duration over the second half of the study period. We also found that driver mistrust increased the most when the vehicle canceled an automated lane change, with system cancellations predicting lower future system use and less positive subjective perceptions of the system overall. Conclusion: Findings clarify differences between automation that supports the execution of a maneuver compared with one that supports both initiation and execution. The latter may risk driver disengagement and insufficient automation verification behavior. Practical applications: Automakers and system designers should be cautious about implementing automated support for action selection without ensuring that drivers engage in sufficient oversight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:00224375
DOI:10.1016/j.jsr.2026.05.015