Driver Takeover Performance and Monitoring Behavior with Driving Automation at System-Limit versus System-Malfunction Failures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today’s vehicles are becoming highly automated, however, if the automation fails, drivers must take over control of the vehicle. Automation may fail as a result of known system limits (system-limit failure) or of malfunctions that are unforeseen by system designers (system-malfunction failure). The aim of this research was to quantify the differences between how these two failure types influence driver takeover performance and monitoring behaviors. In a simulator with SAE Level 2 driving automation, 18 drivers experienced both a system-limit and system-malfunction failure while engaging in a secondary task. Results show that drivers put their hands on the wheel 0.62 s sooner and took over 0.51 s faster for the system-limit failure compared with the system-malfunction failure. Eye tracking data revealed that the percent of time looking at the secondary task display was 12.7% lower and the percent of time looking at the roadway was 11.2% higher before the system-limit failure compared with before the system-malfunction failure. Given that takeover performance and monitoring behavior differ significantly based on failure type, a distinction should be made in the literature between system-limit and system-malfunction failures, and comparisons between previous studies using these failures should not be done without considering this distinction. Furthermore, as SAE Level 2 vehicles are currently available to consumers, efforts should be focused on supporting drivers’ mental models of automated systems, so that drivers are able to successfully predict system-limit failures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".