Are highly automated vehicles as useful as dishwashers? Highly automated vehicles have an impact on drivers’ cognitive processes & these should be considered carefully before introducing automation

Jordan Navarro | Marco Hubert (Reviewing editor:) (2019) Are highly automated vehicles as useful as dishwashers?, Cogent Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/23311908.2019.1575655

Abstract: Due to technological improvements, the vehicle of the future is expected to be autonomous. However, vehicle automation is a matter not only of technology but also of the human behind the wheel. Highly automated vehicles have an impact on drivers’ cognitive processes and these should be considered carefully before introducing automation. It is argued here that automation should not be implemented based solely on what is technologically possible. Instead, human-machine cooperation should be considered and automation adapted accordingly.

Keywords: vehicle automation, human-machine cooperation, autonomous vehicle, function delegation, human supervision, driving assistances

---
3.2. Specific insights regarding vehicle automation

The growing interest shown in highly automated vehicles has given rise to a number of experiments conducted to examine human and ergonomic factors, in particular after 2010. A special issue of Human Factors devoted to “Human Factors and Automation in Vehicles” was published in 2012. This contained ten articles intended to contribute to the design of “Highly Automated Vehicles With the Driver in Mind”. The specific findings were consistent with the general psychological insights presented above. Highly automated vehicles tend to slow down drivers' responses and cause difficulties when they are required to take over control from automation (Merat & Lee, 2012). This led to the conduct of several other experiments focusing on the transition between highly automated and manual driving. The difficulties faced by drivers when required to take over control from automation have been confirmed and explained in terms of changes in drivers’ visual exploration of the driving environment (e.g. Merat, Jamson, Lai, Daly, & Carsten, 2014; Navarro, François, & Mars, 2016). These difficulties can be related to vigilance, complacency, automation bias and out-of-the-loop phenomena as described above.

In sum, from the human perspective, monitoring a highly-automated vehicle is a different task from driving manually. The experimental data collected in the specific context of vehicle automation are consistent with the general psychological insights. While an increase in the level of automation translates into improved performances, it does not directly result in a simplification of drivers' tasks. Thus, from a human perspective, it can be said that using a highly automated vehicle is a more complicated task than using a dishwasher. Of course, driving is in itself a more complicated task than washing dishes. However, in its current state, and unlike the case of a dishwasher, vehicle automation requires drivers to undertake an automation supervision task they are not always ideally equipped to perform.

4. Heading toward new research directions

Extensive literature exists on a range of psychological difficulties faced by humans when they have to monitor and/or take over from automation (see Lu, Happee, Cabrall, Kyriakidis, & de Winter, 2016; Navarro, 2018 for a recent reviews of vehicle automation experiments). Given these psychological observations, the whole concept of delegating functions to automation under human supervision is an awkward one. After all, would you be enthusiastic if you had to monitor your dishwasher and/or take over cleaning duties in the case of a malfunction? Would you even think of designing an automation solution of this type? We believe that this imperfect approach to the way functions are delegated to automation is related to a common misunderstanding of all the tools with which we interact (Osiurak, 2014). Even sophisticated tools, such as vehicle automation, tend to be considered for what there are. This approach is flawed because all tool use is dependent on user-specific, limited and temporary needs. Consequently, any automation solution can be diverted from its intended use to better match the user's needs. It is not r, that the imperfect delegation of functions to automation puts humans in difficult situations that give rise to significant problems and safety issues.

Consequently, research into human-machine cooperation should be oriented toward other, lower levels of automation (e.g. warnings, haptic shared control) or higher levels of automation that do not require any human supervision. More generally, vehicle automation should be conceived of and designed with its possible consequences for the driver in mind. In other words, technology (associated with the machine) and psychology (associated with the driver) should be accorded equal importance during the entire automation design process. This type of systemic (human-machine) approach could prevent some of the ironies of automation (Bainbridge, 1983).

The advent of autonomous vehicles also raises new questions. If humans and tools are considered to interfere with one another in a bidirectional way (Gould, 1987), then it is clear that tools shape us, just as we shape them (Hancock, 2007). Consequently, the way humans are defined should also be reconsidered when we consider completely autonomous tools.