Vigilance Decrement During On-Road Partially Automated Driving Across Four Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study uses a detection task to measure changes in driver vigilance when operating four different partially automated systems. BACKGROUND: Research show temporal declines in detection task performance during manual and fully automated driving, but the accuracy of using this approach for measuring changes in driver vigilance during on-road partially automated driving is yet unproven. METHOD: Participants drove four different vehicles (Tesla Model 3, Cadillac CT6, Volvo XC90, and Nissan Rogue) equipped with level-2 systems in manual and partially automated modes. Response times to a detection task were recorded over eight consecutive time periods. RESULTS: Bayesian analysis revealed a main effect of time period and an interaction between mode and time period. A main effect of vehicle and a time period x vehicle interaction were also found. CONCLUSION: Results indicated that the reduction in detection task performance over time was worse during partially automated driving. Vehicle-specific analysis also revealed that detection task performance changed across vehicles, with slowest response time found for the Volvo. APPLICATION: The greater decline in detection performance found in automated mode suggests that operating level-2 systems incurred in a greater vigilance decrement, a phenomenon that is of interest for Human Factors practitioners and regulators. We also argue that the observed vehicle-related differences are attributable to the unique design of their in-vehicle interfaces.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".