slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Assessing the Safety of Infotainment Systems Used While Driving: Practical Lessons from InfoMan Paul Green & Norimasa K PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Assessing the Safety of Infotainment Systems Used While Driving: Practical Lessons from InfoMan Paul Green & Norimasa K

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 17

Assessing the Safety of Infotainment Systems Used While Driving: Practical Lessons from InfoMan Paul Green & Norimasa K - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 309 Views
  • Uploaded on

Assessing the Safety of Infotainment Systems Used While Driving: Practical Lessons from InfoMan Paul Green & Norimasa Kishi University of Michigan UMTRI Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2150 USA Pagreen@umich.edu www.umich.edu/~driving Nissan Motor Company Nissan Research Center

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Assessing the Safety of Infotainment Systems Used While Driving: Practical Lessons from InfoMan Paul Green & Norimasa K' - oshin


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Assessing the Safety of Infotainment Systems Used While Driving:

Practical Lessons from InfoMan

Paul Green & Norimasa Kishi

University of Michigan

UMTRI

Ann Arbor, Michigan

48109-2150 USA

Pagreen@umich.edu

www.umich.edu/~driving

Nissan Motor Company

Nissan Research Center

Yokosuka, Kanagawa

237-8523, Japan

n-kishi@mail.nissan.co.jp

slide3

InfoMan (Information Manager)

* Workload manager conceived and developed

by Nissan

* Proprietary workload algorithm

* UMTRI provided a background literature

review to support its development

* UMTRI was a collaborator in its evaluation

slide4

What Did We Do? - Issues

  • Experiment 1 (on the road, 2002 Q45):
  • 1. Can an information manager reduce the risk of driving?
  • 2. How can the Nissan workload metric be improved?
  • Experiment 2 (DriveSafety driving simulator):
  • What is the relationship between menu depth & primary task demand?
  • 2. Is PDT sensitive to workload?
  • 3. How do the real and simulated results compare?
slide5

What Did We Do? - Driver Tasks

Hypothetical 4 /level & real interfaces

* Example 3 step

“Set the navigation heading to north up.”

* Example 6 step

“Set the map background display to bright.”

slide6

Simulated

(Exp. 2)

Real

(Exp. 1)

Arterial

Downtown

Rural

M-14

(xway)

US-23

(xway)

Arterial

Downtown

Rural

M-14

(xway)

US-23

(xway)

slide7

Lesson 1 - Simulated Roads

It is extremely difficult to match real roads using the current version of the DriveSafety software due to the tile architecture.

* No 2 lane/direction expressways

* Many missing x-way interchanges

* No pipe bridges for signs (landmarks)

* No easy way to add landmark buildings

slide9

Lesson 2 - Test Roads

  • For large individual differences (e.g., young vs. old), variable length road sections are needed.
  • --> multiple out and back (return) points
  • --> hard to assemble consistent, multi-road sequence
  • 2. Many driving studies occur in the spring/summer construction season. Get the schedules.
  • 3. Because of traffic, data collection time-outs are needed.
  • 4. Obtaining consistent data in urban areas is much more difficult than the open road, the typical case in the U.S.
slide10

Lesson 3 - Dep. Measures - New Scale

Risk

Driving Performance

Menu Task

Peripheral

Detection Task

Rating ** important!

SD of steering wheel angle

SD lane position (sim only)

Headway (time and distance)

SD headway (sim only)

Mean speed

Speed drops (sim only)

Completion time

Response time

Fraction of detected signals

slide11

Lesson 3 - New Rating Scale

Most use TLX to rate task workload/difficulty

- well researched

- used by driving researchers

- has NASA name

But…

Risk .ne. workload

Difficult to relate TLX to driving dimensions

(road geometry, traffic, etc.)

Drivers need contextual anchors for rating

- range of ratings is uncertain -> range compression

- drivers forget what things were -> inconsistency

slide12

Rating, As Risky As...

10. Driving with my eyes closed. A crash will occur every time

9. Pass a school bus: red lights flashing & the stop arm out

8. Driving just under the legal alcohol limit with observed weaving

7.

6. Driving 20 miles an hour faster than traffic on an expressway

5.

4. Driving 10 miles an hour faster than traffic on an expressway

3.

2. Driving on an average road under average conditions

1. Driving on an easy road with no traffic, pedestrians, or animals while perfectly alert

(UMTRI Scale)

slide13

Lesson 3 - UMTRI Risk Scale Calibration

Extremely somewhat neither safe somewhat extremelysafe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe

1. Drive on an average road under average conditions

2. Drive through a stop sign without slowing down

6. Driving today: Perform a short task while driving on the hwy

7. Driving today: Perform a long task while driving on the hwy

* Mark the risk ratings you gave while driving (e.g., a “2”).

* Below what value would you perform a non-urgent task?

* Above what value would you never perform in-vehicle tasks?

slide14

Lesson 3 - Key Points About Ratings

Most ratings are 2-6, so most ratings are relative to speed (unidimensional).

* crash prob. versus excess speed (for x-ways) ->

fatalities (“How many people will die” question.)

Normalize to what is acceptable for each driver so between driver comparisons are consistent. (Different drivers have different acceptance levels for excess speed.)

Post-test ratings (each task length (none, 3, 6 steps), each road type) were well correlated with ratings while driving. (-> reliable)

slide15

Example Results from Risk Ratings

20% short tasks, 40% long tasks > individual safety thresholds

slide16

References

Project reports to appear, see www.umich.edu/~driving

Tsimhoni, Smith, and Green, (2003). On-the-Road Assessment of Driving Workload and Risk to Support the Development of an Information Manager (Technical Report UMTRI-2003-08)

Tsimhoni, Smith, and Green, (2003). The Effect of In-Vehicle Task Menu Depth and Driving Workload on Task and Driving Performance (Technical Report UMTRI-2003-09)

Risk Rating

Boyle, Dienstfrey, and Sothoron (1998). National Survey of Speeding and Other Unsafe Driving Actions (NHTSA report)