How Can the Trust-Change Direction be Measured and Identified During Takeover Transitions in Conditionally Automated Driving? Using Physiological Responses and Takeover-Related Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This paper proposes an objective method to measure and identify trust-change directions during takeover transitions (TTs) in conditionally automated vehicles (AVs). BACKGROUND: Takeover requests (TORs) will be recurring events in conditionally automated driving that could undermine trust, and then lead to inappropriate reliance on conditionally AVs, such as misuse and disuse. METHOD: 34 drivers engaged in the non-driving-related task were involved in a sequence of takeover events in a driving simulator. The relationships and effects between drivers' physiological responses, takeover-related factors, and trust-change directions during TTs were explored by the combination of an unsupervised learning algorithm and statistical analyses. Furthermore, different typical machine learning methods were applied to establish recognition models of trust-change directions during TTs based on takeover-related factors and physiological parameters. RESULT: Combining the change values in the subjective trust rating and monitoring behavior before and after takeover can reliably measure trust-change directions during TTs. The statistical analysis results showed that physiological parameters (i.e., skin conductance and heart rate) during TTs are negatively linked with the trust-change directions. And drivers were more likely to increase trust during TTs when they were in longer TOR lead time, with more takeover frequencies, and dealing with the stationary vehicle scenario. More importantly, the F1-score of the random forest (RF) model is nearly 77.3%. CONCLUSION: The features investigated and the RF model developed can identify trust-change directions during TTs accurately. APPLICATION: Those findings can provide additional support for developing trust monitoring systems to mitigate both drivers' overtrust and undertrust in conditionally AVs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".