Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 95 references

Your Interface, Your Control: Adapting Takeover Requests for Seamless Handover in Semi-Autonomous Vehicles

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Takeover warnings should adapt to driving complexity, two simulator studies find

desk verdict Solid data on HUD vs HDD and gaze clustering, but the headline adaptive time-budget guidelines are not supported by the analyses as reported — non-significant key interaction, reversed gaze-entropy evidence, and internal statistical contradictions. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01836 v1 pith:6DWHAG7R submitted 2025-06-02 cs.HC

Amr Gomaa , Simon Engel , Elena Meiser , Abdulrahman Mohamed Selim , Tobias Jungbluth , Aeneas Leon Sommer , Sarah Kohlmann , Michael Barz
show 4 more authors
Maurice Rekrut Michael Feld Daniel Sonntag Antonio Krüger
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords adaptivetakeoverrequestsemi-autonomousvehicleshead-updisplaytimebudgetsituationalawarenesseyetrackingmentalworkloaddrivingsimulator
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that takeover requests in semi-autonomous vehicles should not be delivered with a fixed warning style, but adapted to the driving situation and the individual driver. In two simulator studies, it varies the location of the takeover warning (head-up versus head-down display) and the time budget given before control transfers (4, 8, or 12 seconds), across rural and urban environments and two non-driving tasks. The results show that head-up displays generally produce faster reactions and better driving quality, while head-down displays become useful when speed of response matters most. The paper derives design guidelines: longer budgets (12 seconds) with head-up displays for non-hazardous high-complexity events, and shorter budgets with head-down displays for hazardous low-complexity events. If these guidelines transfer beyond the simulator, they give engineers concrete parameters for safer human-automation handovers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the pairing of two adjustable interface parameters, warning display location (head-up vs head-down) and time budget (4, 8, or 12 seconds), with three measurement channels: reaction time and takeover quality, subjective workload measured by NASA-TLX, and gaze behaviour quantified as area-of-interest scanpaths or stationary gaze entropy. The K-means clustering of gaze features is the mechanism that turns individual differences into a design input, splitting participants into a road-monitoring group and a task-engaged group with different response patterns. Together these form the basis for the paper's adaptive strategy: choose display and budget according to environment complexity and observed gaze state, for example head-up with 12 seconds for non-hazardous high-complexity events and head-down for hazardous low-complexity events.

What would settle it

Run a naturalistic or high-fidelity simulator study in which takeover requests are genuinely unannounced, varying the interval before the request so participants cannot predict it, and compare reaction times and takeover quality across HUD/HDD and 4-, 8-, and 12-second budgets in high- and low-complexity environments. If the display and budget effects shrink or reverse when anticipation is removed, the paper's recommended parameter values would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the two most consequential parameters of a takeover request, where the warning appears and how much time the driver is given, should be tuned jointly by environmental complexity and by the driver's gaze behaviour rather than fixed. The display study found that head-up warnings yielded faster reactions and fewer missed takeovers overall, yet the advantage was concentrated in low-complexity environments and for drivers who were less engaged with the road. The time-budget study found that longer budgets reduce temporal demand, with 12 seconds warranted in high-complexity environments while 8 seconds suffices in low-complexity settings. A gaze-based clustering analysis separated drivers into a road-fixating group and a task-engaged group that responded differently to the two displays, which the authors take as evidence that adaptation should be driven by real-time driver state rather than by display or timing alone. The paper is careful to state these as guidelines from simulated, anticipated takeovers, not as field-validated safety limits.

Load-bearing premise

The guidelines rest on the premise that reaction times measured in a simulator, where participants knew a takeover request was coming, transfer to real-world urgent takeovers where drivers are not expecting one, which the paper itself flags in Section 5.4 as likely making responses faster than in real driving.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future conditionally automated vehicles could select 12-second takeover budgets in visually complex settings and 8 seconds in simpler ones, based on the paper's simulated findings.
  • Head-up displays can serve as the baseline for takeover warnings, with the system switching to head-down displays when rapid reaction is the priority in critical situations.
  • Real-time gaze monitoring could be used to adjust the warning display to the driver's engagement state, for instance moving warnings to the head-up display when the driver is absorbed in a non-driving task.
  • The type of non-driving task may matter less than environment complexity for setting the time budget, since no significant workload or awareness differences were found between the tested tasks.
  • Drivers who fixate on the road during autonomous driving should not be assumed ready to take over; the gaze clusters suggest that road-looking alone did not predict better takeover performance.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: if the anticipation effect noted in Section 5.4 is real, the recommended 8- and 12-second budgets may need upward revision for genuinely unexpected real-world takeovers, and a naturalistic study with unannounced requests could test this.
  • Beyond the paper: the gaze clusters imply that a simple online classifier using the driver's current fixation pattern could decide display choice in real time, which the paper suggests but does not implement as a closed-loop control rule.
  • Beyond the paper: the same adaptive logic could extend to other warning attributes the paper lists but does not vary, such as auditory or haptic modality and weather-condition adjustments, provided the complexity metric is generalised beyond the rural-urban contrast studied here.
  • Beyond the paper: the finding that road-looking drivers performed worse suggests that gaze distribution should be treated as a state signal rather than a proxy for readiness, which generalises beyond takeover requests to other attention-aware automotive interfaces.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents two within-subject driving-simulator studies aimed at informing adaptive takeover-request (ToR) design in semi-automated vehicles. Study 1 (N=29) compares head-up versus head-down display locations for takeover warnings; Study 2 (N=37) compares 4 s, 8 s, and 12 s takeover time budgets. Outcomes include reaction time, NASA-TLX workload, driving-performance measures, gaze behavior, and, in Study 2, EEG-based workload. The authors report partial support for several hypotheses and propose design guidelines, notably longer time budgets and HUDs for non-hazardous high-complexity scenarios and shorter budgets and HDDs for hazardous low-complexity scenarios. Many hypotheses, including all three Time Budget Study interaction hypotheses, were not supported, and the EEG workload measure did not differentiate conditions.

Significance. If the reported guidelines were supported by the data, the paper would make a useful contribution to the design of adaptive takeover systems in conditionally automated driving. The work has clear strengths: two complementary, counterbalanced within-subject studies; an a priori power analysis; multiple converging measurement channels (performance, subjective workload, gaze, EEG); and unusually transparent reporting of null and partially supported results, including the authors' own acknowledgment in Section 5.4 that participants knew a takeover was coming. The gaze-clustering analysis in the Display Type Study is also a constructive step toward personalization. However, the central adaptive time-budget recommendation rests on a non-significant interaction and on internally inconsistent gaze-entropy reporting, and one display recommendation contradicts the paper's own findings. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's headline claim of providing 'clear design guidelines for adaptive takeover systems.'

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2.3 and §5.2] The recommendation to use a 12 s budget in high-complexity environments and an 8 s budget in low-complexity environments is not supported by the reported statistics. For the remaining-time-budget (time-till-system-boundary) metric, environmental complexity is non-significant (F(1,36)=3.33, p=.076) and the complexity-by-time-budget interaction is non-significant (F(2,72)=0.85, p=.432). The only significant effect is the time-budget main effect (F(1.3,46.86)=511.41, p<.001, η²=.934), which is largely mechanical: a countdown starting at 12 s leaves more time than one starting at 4 s regardless of driver behavior. The proposed environment-dependent guideline requires the interaction that the data do not provide.
  2. [§4.2.2 vs §5.2 and §5.3] The stationary gaze entropy result is reported in opposite directions. Section 4.2.2 states that high-complexity environments produced higher gaze entropy than low-complexity environments (M=1.77 vs 1.70, p=.043), while Sections 5.2 and 5.3 claim that drivers exhibited higher gaze entropy in low-complexity environments. The latter claim is used to justify the 8 s recommendation in low-complexity environments. This contradiction is load-bearing and must be resolved before the gaze-based justification can be accepted.
  3. [§4.2.5 and Table 3] The interaction tests for TI1 and TI2 are reported inconsistently. The text says there was 'no significant interaction' between time budget and environmental complexity or NDRT, but it reports MATS=45.71, p<.001 for both. A p-value below .001 indicates significance, and the value MATS=45.71 appears to be the main-effect statistic from the NASA-TLX MANOVA in Section 4.2.3 rather than an interaction statistic. Table 3 repeats the same contradictory entries. This needs correction before the conclusion that TI1 and TI2 are unsupported can be evaluated.
  4. [§5.3 and §6] The display recommendation contradicts the study's own results. The paper reports that HUD warnings produced shorter reaction times and better driving quality than HDD warnings overall (DM3) and in low-complexity environments (DI1), yet Section 5.3 recommends using 'the HDD as a default for faster reaction' and the conclusion repeats 'using HDD for faster reaction situations (i.e., in critical situations).' Either the recommendation or the reported results are misstated, and this directly affects the proposed adaptive display strategy.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.5.1] In the Display Type Study driving-performance description, 'person correlation coefficient' should be 'Pearson correlation coefficient.'
  2. [§4.1.2] For the lateral offset correlation coefficient, the Tukey HSD result reports a mean difference of 0.16 with a 95% confidence interval of [0.03, 0.15]; the confidence interval does not contain the point estimate, so these values should be rechecked.
  3. [Throughout] The effect-size notation '𝜂2𝑝' appears intended as partial eta-squared (η²_p) but is typeset as a subscript '2' followed by 'p'; the formatting should be corrected for consistency.
  4. [§1 and §3.1.1] The parenthetical 'N.B.' insertions are editorial notes and should be removed or integrated into the surrounding text.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Time Budget Study's 'remaining time budget' metric is defined from the time-budget IV; its near-perfect effect (eta^2=.934) is tautological yet used to support TM2 and the 8/12 s recommendations.

  1. self definitional [Sections 3.5.1, 3.6, 4.2.4]
    "Time Budget Study used the remaining time budget (sometimes referred to as Time Left till System Boundary) as a metric to evaluate the takeover quality. ... The additional time budget in the Time Budget Study was calculated from the winsorised reaction time. ... The previously mentioned ANOVA tests conducted for the time till system boundary (i.e., remaining time budget) showed a significant effect for time budget (F(1.3, 46.86) = 511.41, p = <0.001, η2p = 0.934). ... Time till system boundary increased with an increase in time budget ... Therefore, TM2 is partially supported."

    The dependent variable 'remaining time budget' / 'time till system boundary' is, by the paper's own definition, the time-budget IV minus the (winsorised) reaction time. Testing the IV against this DV therefore tests a quantity that contains the IV by construction: raising the budget from 4 to 8 to 12 s mechanically raises the maximum and, for any fixed reaction time, the observed remaining time. The reported near-perfect effect (eta^2 = 0.934) and the conclusion that 'time till system boundary increased with an increase in time budget' are entailed by the metric's definition rather than being an empirical finding about takeover quality.

full rationale

This paper is predominantly an empirical user study with substantial independent content: the HUD/HDD comparisons, gaze and EEG analyses, driving-performance measures, and clustering are not derived from the paper's assumptions. Self-citations to the authors' prior work (e.g., [26], [64]) are ordinary and not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported. The main circularity is localized to the Time Budget Study's 'remaining time budget' / 'time till system boundary' metric, which is defined from the time-budget IV minus reaction time. The ANOVA testing this DV against the IV is therefore tautological, yet the paper uses it as partial support for TM2 and for the 8/12 s time-budget recommendations. The recommendations also rely on independent gaze and driving-performance measures, so the whole derivation is not circular; but because one central 'prediction' reduces by construction, the score is 6. Additional weaknesses identified by the skeptic—the non-significant complexity-by-budget interaction and the reversed gaze-entropy direction in the discussion—are correctness/interpretation issues rather than circularity and do not further raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on empirical assumptions about measurement validity and simulator generalizability, and on several hand-chosen analysis thresholds (imputation value, interruption cutoff, K). No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Missed reaction imputation value = 7000 ms
    Chosen as the maximum takeover time in the Display Type Study; used to impute missed takeovers, and the authors note it changes the significance of reaction-time tests.
  • NDRT interruption frequency threshold = 0.3/s
    Hand-chosen cutoff to dichotomize low vs high interruption frequency in hypothesis DM2.
  • Number of gaze clusters K = 2
    Selected based on a silhouette score of 0.224; partitions participants into Cluster 1 and Cluster 2.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math ANOVA is robust to non-normality with sample sizes around 30 (central limit theorem)
    Invoked in Section 3.6 to justify ANOVA on non-normal data; this is a domain assumption about robustness.
  • domain assumption Stationary Gaze Entropy is a valid indicator of situational awareness
    Used in the Time Budget Study as a measure of situational awareness, following Shiferaw et al. [80].
  • domain assumption NASA-TLX is a valid measure of mental workload in driving simulators
    Used as the guiding workload metric in both studies, citing prior automotive studies [10, 65].
  • domain assumption EEG theta/alpha ratio is a valid workload measure in driving contexts
    Used in the Time Budget Study following Kartali et al. [40], but the authors later conclude in Section 5.2 that the method is 'not mature enough for highly mechanical tasks such as driving.'
  • domain assumption Drivers treat simulator takeovers with realistic urgency
    Authors note in Section 5.4 that 'the speed of their reactions suggested that they treated the takeover situation seriously,' but also acknowledge anticipation bias.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Your Interface, Your Control: Adapting Takeover Requests for Seamless Handover in Semi-Autonomous Vehicles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6DWHAG7R

@misc{pith2026250601836,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Your Interface, Your Control: Adapting Takeover Requests for Seamless Handover in Semi-Autonomous Vehicles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6DWHAG7R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01836}
}
read the original abstract

With the automotive industry transitioning towards conditionally automated driving, takeover warning systems are crucial for ensuring safe collaborative driving between users and semi-automated vehicles. However, previous work has focused on static warning systems that do not accommodate different driver states. Therefore, we propose an adaptive takeover warning system that is personalised to drivers, enhancing their experience and safety. We conducted two user studies investigating semi-autonomous driving scenarios in rural and urban environments while participants performed non-driving-related tasks such as text entry and visual search. We investigated the effects of varying time budgets and head-up versus head-down displays for takeover requests on drivers' situational awareness and mental state. Through our statistical and clustering analyses, we propose strategies for designing adaptable takeover systems, e.g., using longer time budgets and head-up displays for non-hazardous takeover events in high-complexity environments while using shorter time budgets and head-down displays for hazardous events in low-complexity environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01836 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: Our driving simulator setup. Bottom: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of the two driving environments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The route and scenarios used in the Display Type Study [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The driving route used in the Time Budget Study. The blue lines represent the autonomous driving segments of the road, and the red lines represent the manual driving seg￾ments. Note that there is always an automatic autonomous driving segment after each manual segment,…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The NDRTs used in both user studies. practice them. They were also given the opportunity to freely drive around in the simulator in a tutorial scenario to familiarise them￾selves with the vehicle. Afterwards, they completed the driving scenarios. Only in the Time Budge…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Clustering visualisation showing distinct partici [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Filippo Baldisserotto, Krzysztof Krejtz, and Izabela Krejtz. 2023. A Review of Eye Tracking in Advanced Driver Assistance Systems: An Adaptive Multi-Modal Eye Tracking Interface Solution. InProceedings of the 2023 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (ETRA ’23) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–3. doi:10.1145/35880...

    arXiv 2023

  2. [3]

    Shaibal Barua, Mobyen Uddin Ahmed, and Shahina Begum. 2020. Towards Intelligent Data Analytics: A Case Study in Driver Cognitive Load Classification. Brain Sciences 10, 8 (Aug. 2020), 526. doi:10.3390/brainsci10080526 Number: 8 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    work page doi:10.3390/brainsci10080526 2020

  3. [4]

    Klaus Bengler, Martin Kohlmann, and Christian Lange. 2012. Assessment of cognitive workload of in-vehicle systems using a visual peripheral and tactile detection task setting. Work 41, Supplement 1 (Jan. 2012), 4919–4923. doi:10. 3233/WOR-2012-0786-4919 Publisher: IOS Press

    2012

  4. [5]

    Donald A. Berry. 1987. Logarithmic Transformations in ANOVA.Biometrics 43, 2 (1987), 439–456. doi:10.2307/2531826 Publisher: [Wiley, International Biometric Society]

    work page doi:10.2307/2531826 1987

  5. [6]

    Blanca, Rafael Alarcón, Jaume Arnau, Roser Bono, and Rebecca Bendayan

    María J. Blanca, Rafael Alarcón, Jaume Arnau, Roser Bono, and Rebecca Bendayan

  6. [7]

    G. E. P. BOX. 1949. A GENERAL DISTRIBUTION THEORY FOR A CLASS OF LIKELIHOOD CRITERIA. Biometrika 36, 3-4 (Dec. 1949), 317–346. doi:10.1093/ biomet/36.3-4.317

    1949

  7. [8]

    Maria C. Panou. 2018. Intelligent personalized ADAS warnings. European Transport Research Review 10, 2 (Dec. 2018), 59. doi:10.1186/s12544-018-0324-6

    work page doi:10.1186/s12544-018-0324-6 2018

  8. [9]

    Ahmad, Jiaming Liang, Simon Godsill, Alexandra Bre- mers, Philip Thomas, David Oxtoby, and Lee Skrypchuk

    Nermin Caber, Bashar I. Ahmad, Jiaming Liang, Simon Godsill, Alexandra Bre- mers, Philip Thomas, David Oxtoby, and Lee Skrypchuk. 2024. Driver Profiling and Bayesian Workload Estimation Using Naturalistic Peripheral Detection Study Data. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles 9, 1 (Jan. 2024), 3047–3060. doi:10.1109/TIV.2023.3313419

    arXiv 2024

Show all 95 references
  1. [10]

    Carsten, Natasha

    Oliver. Carsten, Natasha. Merat, Wiel Janssen, Emma Johansson, Mark. Fowkes, and Karel Brookhuis. 2005. Human Machine Interaction and the Safety of Traffic in Europe. Final Publishable Report. Project and European Commission. 1–63 pages. Gomaa et al

    2005

  2. [11]

    Casali and Walter W

    John G. Casali and Walter W. Wierwille. 1983. A Comparison of Rating Scale, Secondary-Task, Physiological, and Primary-Task Workload Estimation Tech- niques in a Simulated Flight Task Emphasizing Communications Load. Human Factors 25, 6 (Dec. 1983), 623–641. doi:10.1177/001872...

    1983 doi

  3. [13]

    Henrik Detjen, Sarah Faltaous, Bastian Pfleging, Stefan Geisler, and Stefan Schneegass. 2021. How to Increase Automated Vehicles’ Acceptance through In- Vehicle Interaction Design: A Review. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 37, 4 (Feb. 2021), 308–330. doi:10...

    2021

  4. [14]

    George Dimitrakopoulos, Aggelos Tsakanikas, and Elias Panagiotopoulos. 2021. Chapter 6 - A path of structural transformation for the automotive and insur- ance industries toward autonomous vehicles. In Autonomous Vehicles, George Dimitrakopoulos, Aggelos Tsakanikas, and Elias ...

    2021 doi

  5. [15]

    Ebru Dogan, Vincent Honnêt, Stéphan Masfrand, and Anne Guillaume. 2019. Ef- fects of non-driving-related tasks on takeover performance in different takeover situations in conditionally automated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 62 (Apri...

    2019 doi

  6. [16]

    Robert, Anuj K

    Na Du, Feng Zhou, Elizabeth Pulver, Dawn Tilbury, Lionel P. Robert, Anuj K. Pradhan, and X. Jessie Yang. 2020. Predicting Takeover Performance in Condi- tionally Automated Driving. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’...

    2020

  7. [17]

    Duchowski

    Andrew T. Duchowski. 2018. Gaze-based interaction: A 30 year retrospective. Computers & Graphics 73 (June 2018), 59–69. doi:10.1016/j.cag.2018.04.002

    2018 doi

  8. [18]

    Alexander Eriksson and Neville A. Stanton. 2017. Takeover Time in Highly Automated Vehicles: Noncritical Transitions to and From Manual Control.Human Factors 59, 4 (June 2017), 689–705. doi:10.1177/0018720816685832 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    2017 doi

  9. [19]

    Franz Faul, Edgar Erdfelder, Axel Buchner, and Albert-Georg Lang. 2009. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and re- gression analyses. Behavior Research Methods 41, 4 (Nov. 2009), 1149–1160. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

    2009 doi

  10. [20]

    Tobias Fischer, Hyung Jin Chang, and Yiannis Demiris. 2018. RT- GENE: Real-Time Eye Gaze Estimation in Natural Environments. In Pro- ceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) . 334–

    2018

  11. [21]

    Gerber, Ronald Schroeter, Daniel Johnson, Christian P

    Michael A. Gerber, Ronald Schroeter, Daniel Johnson, Christian P. Janssen, Andry Rakotonirainy, Jonny Kuo, and Mike Lenné. 2024. An Eye Gaze Heatmap Analysis of Uncertainty Head-Up Display Designs for Conditional Automated Driving. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human...

    2024

  12. [22]

    A Gevins, M E Smith, L McEvoy, and D Yu. 1997. High-resolution EEG mapping of cortical activation related to working memory: effects of task difficulty, type of processing, and practice. Cerebral Cortex 7, 4 (June 1997), 374–385. doi:10. 1093/cercor/7.4.374

    1997

  13. [23]

    Peckham, and James R

    Gene V Glass, Percy D. Peckham, and James R. Sanders. 1972. Consequences of Failure to Meet Assumptions Underlying the Fixed Effects Analyses of Variance and Covariance. Review of Educational Research 42, 3 (Sept. 1972), 237–288. doi:10. 3102/00346543042003237 Publisher: Ameri...

    1972

  14. [24]

    Take over!

    Christian Gold, Daniel Damböck, Lutz Lorenz, and Klaus Bengler. 2013. “Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop? Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 57, 1 (Sept. 2013), 1938–1942. doi:10.1177/1541931213571433 Pub...

    2013 doi

  15. [25]

    Christian Gold, Moritz Körber, David Lechner, and Klaus Bengler. 2016. Taking Over Control From Highly Automated Vehicles in Complex Traffic Situations: The Role of Traffic Density. Human Factors 58, 4 (June 2016), 642–652. doi:10. 1177/0018720816634226 Publisher: SAGE Publica...

    2016

  16. [26]

    Amr Gomaa, Alexandra Alles, Elena Meiser, Lydia Helene Rupp, Marco Molz, and Guillermo Reyes. 2022. What’s on your mind? A Mental and Perceptual Load Estimation Framework towards Adaptive In-vehicle Interaction while Driving. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference...

    2022

  17. [27]

    Greenhouse and Seymour Geisser

    Samuel W. Greenhouse and Seymour Geisser. 1959. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika 24, 2 (June 1959), 95–112. doi:10.1007/BF02289823

    1959 doi

  18. [28]

    Renate Haeuslschmid, Susanne Forster, Katharina Vierheilig, Daniel Buschek, and Andreas Butz. 2017. Recognition of Text and Shapes on a Large-Sized Head- Up Display. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’17). Association for Computing Mac...

    2017

  19. [29]

    Hart and Lowell E

    Sandra G. Hart and Lowell E. Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. In Advances in Psychology, Peter A. Hancock and Najmedin Meshkati (Eds.). Human Mental Workload, Vol. 52. North-Holland, 139–183. doi:10.1016...

    1988 doi

  20. [30]

    Michael R. Harwell. 1992. Summarizing Monte Carlo Results in Methodological Research. Journal of Educational Statistics 17, 4 (Dec. 1992), 297–313. doi:10.3102/ 10769986017004297 Publisher: American Educational Research Association

    1992

  21. [31]

    Martina Hasenjäger, Martin Heckmann, and Heiko Wersing. 2020. A Survey of Personalization for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles 5, 2 (June 2020), 335–344. doi:10.1109/TIV.2019.2955910 Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Intelligent...

    2020

  22. [32]

    Martina Hasenjäger and Heiko Wersing. 2017. Personalization in advanced driver assistance systems and autonomous vehicles: A review. In 2017 IEEE 20th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) . 1–7. doi:10.1109/ITSC.2017.8317803 ISSN: 2153-0017

    2017

  23. [33]

    Herzog, Gregory Francis, and Aaron Clarke

    Michael H. Herzog, Gregory Francis, and Aaron Clarke. 2019. Understanding Statistics and Experimental Design: How to Not Lie with Statistics . Springer International Publishing, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03499-3

    2019 doi

  24. [34]

    Kuhn, Lukas Püttner, Goran Petrovic, and Eckehard Steinbach

    Markus Hofbauer, Christopher B. Kuhn, Lukas Püttner, Goran Petrovic, and Eckehard Steinbach. 2020. Measuring Driver Situation Awareness Using Region- of-Interest Prediction and Eye Tracking. In 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM). 91–95. doi:10.1109/ISM.2020.00022

    2020

  25. [35]

    Anu Holm, Kristian Lukander, Jussi Korpela, Mikael Sallinen, and Kiti M. I. Müller. 2009. Estimating Brain Load from the EEG. The Scien- tific World Journal 9, 1 (2009), 973791. doi:10.1100/tsw.2009.83 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1100/tsw.2009.83

    2009 doi

  26. [36]

    Kenneth Holmqvist, Marcus Nystrom, Richard Andersson, Richard Dewhurst, Halszka Jarodzka, Weijer, and Joost van de. 2011. Eye Tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures . Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York

    2011

  27. [37]

    Horrey and Christopher D

    William J. Horrey and Christopher D. Wickens. 2004. Driving and Side Task Performance: The Effects of Display Clutter, Separation, and Modality. Human Factors 46, 4 (Dec. 2004), 611–624. doi:10.1518/hfes.46.4.611.56805 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    2004 doi

  28. [38]

    Horrey and Christopher D

    William J. Horrey and Christopher D. Wickens. 2007. In-Vehicle Glance Duration: Distributions, Tails, and Model of Crash Risk. Transportation Research Record 2018, 1 (Jan. 2007), 22–28. doi:10.3141/2018-04 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    2007 doi

  29. [39]

    Horrey, Christopher D

    William J. Horrey, Christopher D. Wickens, and Amy L. Alexander. 2003. The Effects of Head-Up Display Clutter and In-Vehicle Display Separation on Concurrent Driving Performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Er- gonomics Society Annual Meeting 47, 16 (Oct. 2003), 1880–...

    2003

  30. [40]

    Janković, Ivan Gligorijević, Pavle Mijović, Bogdan Mijović, and Maria Chiara Leva

    Aneta Kartali, Milica M. Janković, Ivan Gligorijević, Pavle Mijović, Bogdan Mijović, and Maria Chiara Leva. 2019. Real-Time Mental Workload Estimation Using EEG. In Human Mental Workload: Models and Applications , Luca Longo and Maria Chiara Leva (Eds.). Springer International...

    2019 doi

  31. [42]

    Gabbard, and Nicholas F

    Hyungil Kim, Xuefang Wu, Joseph L. Gabbard, and Nicholas F. Polys. 2013. Exploring head-up augmented reality interfaces for crash warning systems. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Automotiv...

    2013

  32. [43]

    Are You Ready to Take-over?

    Naeun Kim, Kwangmin Jeong, Minyoung Yang, Yejeon Oh, and Jinwoo Kim. 2017. "Are You Ready to Take-over?": An Exploratory Study on Visual Assistance to Enhance Driver Vigilance. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (...

    2017 doi

  33. [44]

    Young Woo Kim, Da Yeong Kim, and Sol Hee Yoon. 2022. Understanding Driver’s Situation Awareness in Highly Automated Driving. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI ’22). Ass...

    2022

  34. [45]

    Iuliia Kotseruba and John K. Tsotsos. 2022. Attention for Vision-Based Assistive and Automated Driving: A Review of Algorithms and Datasets.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 23, 11 (Nov. 2022), 19907–19928. doi:10. 1109/TITS.2022.3186613 Conference Name: ...

    2022

  35. [46]

    Maciej Kozłowski. 2016. Assessment of safety and ride quality based on com- parative studies of a new type of universal steering wheel in 3D simulators. Eksploatacja i Niezawodność 18, 4 (2016), 481–487. doi:10.17531/ein2016.4.1 Adapting Takeover Requests for Seamless Handover

    2016 doi

  36. [47]

    Jonas, Klaus Mathiak, and Jana Zweerings

    Ekaterina Kutafina, Anne Heiligers, Radomir Popovic, Alexander Brenner, Bernd Hankammer, Stephan M. Jonas, Klaus Mathiak, and Jana Zweerings. 2021. Track- ing of Mental Workload with a Mobile EEG Sensor. Sensors 21, 15 (Jan. 2021),

    2021

  37. [48]

    Nilli Lavie. 2005. Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load.Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9, 2 (Feb. 2005), 75–82. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004

    2005 doi

  38. [49]

    Howard Levene. 1960. Robust Tests for Equality of Variances. In Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Hotelling , Ingram Olkin, Sudhist G. Ghurye, Wassily Hoeffding, William G. Madow, and Henry B. Mann (Eds.). Stanford University Press, Palo Al...

    1960

  39. [50]

    Xiaomeng Li, Ronald Schroeter, Andry Rakotonirainy, Jonny Kuo, and Michael G. Lenné. 2020. Effects of different non-driving-related-task display modes on dri- vers’ eye-movement patterns during take-over in an automated vehicle. Trans- portation Research Part F: Traffic Psycho...

    2020

  40. [51]

    Yannis Lilis, Emmanouil Zidianakis, Nikolaos Partarakis, Margherita Antona, and Constantine Stephanidis. 2017. Personalizing HMI Elements in ADAS Using Ontology Meta-Models and Rule Based Reasoning. In Universal Access in Hu- man–Computer Interaction. Design and Development Ap...

    2017 doi

  41. [52]

    Yung-Ching Liu and Ming-Hui Wen. 2004. Comparison of head-up display (HUD) vs. head-down display (HDD): driving performance of commercial vehicle operators in Taiwan. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 61, 5 (Nov. 2004), 679–697. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.06.002

    2004 doi

  42. [53]

    S. Lloyd. 1982. Least squares quantization in PCM. IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory 28, 2 (March 1982), 129–137. doi:10.1109/TIT.1982.1056489

    1982

  43. [54]

    Payne, and David L

    Monika Lohani, Brennan R. Payne, and David L. Strayer. 2019. A Review of Psychophysiological Measures to Assess Cognitive States in Real-World Driving. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 13 (March 2019). doi:10.3389/fnhum.2019.00057 Publisher: Frontiers

    2019

  44. [55]

    Thomas Lumley, Paula Diehr, Scott Emerson, and Lu Chen. 2002. The Impor- tance of the Normality Assumption in Large Public Health Data Sets. Annual Review of Public Health 23, Volume 23, 2002 (2002), 151–169. doi:10.1146/annurev. publhealth.23.100901.140546 Publisher: Annual R...

    2002

  45. [56]

    J. B. MacQueen. 1967. Some Methods for Classification and Analysis of Multi- Variate Observations. In Proc. of the fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, L. M. Le Cam and J. Neyman (Eds.), Vol. 1. University of California Press, 281–297

    1967

  46. [57]

    Mahalanobis

    P.C. Mahalanobis. 1936. On the Generalised Distance in Statistics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of India 2 (1936), 49–55. https://link.springer. com/article/10.1007/s13171-019-00164-5

    1936 doi

  47. [58]

    Gerhard Marquart, Christopher Cabrall, and Joost de Winter. 2015. Review of Eye-related Measures of Drivers’ Mental Workload. Procedia Manufacturing 3 (Jan. 2015), 2854–2861. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.783

    2015 doi

  48. [59]

    Marieke Martens and Wim Van Winsum. 2000. Measuring distraction: the Periph- eral Detection Task. (Jan. 2000). https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/ Human%20Factors/driver-distraction/pdf/34.pdf

    2000

  49. [60]

    Sujitha Martin, Sourabh Vora, Kevan Yuen, and Mohan Manubhai Trivedi. 2018. Dynamics of Driver’s Gaze: Explorations in Behavior Modeling and Maneuver Prediction. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles 3, 2 (June 2018), 141–150. doi:10.1109/TIV.2018.2804160 Conference Name: ...

    2018

  50. [61]

    Moniri, and Christian Müller

    Rafael Math, Angela Mahr, Mohammad M. Moniri, and Christian Müller. 2013. OpenDS: A new open-source driving simulator for research. In AmE, GMM- Fachtagung Automotive meets Electronics, 4 , Vol. 75. VDE-Verlag;, Berlin, Offen- bach, 104–105. https://www.tib.eu/de/suchen/id/tem...

    2013

  51. [62]

    McKendrick and Erin Cherry

    Ryan D. McKendrick and Erin Cherry. 2018. A Deeper Look at the NASA TLX and Where It Falls Short. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 62, 1 (Sept. 2018), 44–48. doi:10.1177/1541931218621010 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    2018 doi

  52. [63]

    Kun, Tim Paek, and Oskar Palinko

    Zeljko Medenica, Andrew L. Kun, Tim Paek, and Oskar Palinko. 2011. Aug- mented reality vs. street views: a driving simulator study comparing two emerging navigation aids. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and ...

    2011

  53. [64]

    Abdulrahman Mohamed Selim, Michael Barz, Omair Shahzad Bhatti, Hasan Md Tusfiqur Alam, and Daniel Sonntag. 2024. A review of machine learning in scanpath analysis for passive gaze-based interaction. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 7 (June 2024). doi:10.3389/frai.2024.1391...

    2024

  54. [65]

    Frederik Naujoks, Dennis Befelein, Katharina Wiedemann, and Alexandra Neukum. 2018. A Review of Non-driving-related Tasks Used in Studies on Automated Driving. In Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation , Neville A Stanton (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 52...

    2018 doi

  55. [66]

    M. R. Nuwer and P. Coutin-Churchman. 2014. Brain Mapping and Quantitative Electroencephalogram. In Encyclopedia of the Neurological Sciences (Second Edition), Michael J. Aminoff and Robert B. Daroff (Eds.). Academic Press, Oxford, 499–504. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-385157-4.00519-4

    2014 doi

  56. [67]

    Olsson and P

    S. Olsson and P. C. Burns. 2000. Measuring Driver Visual Distraction with a Peripheral Detection Task. (2000). https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/ Human%20Factors/driver-distraction/PDF/6.PDF

    2000

  57. [68]

    Erfan Pakdamanian, Shili Sheng, Sonia Baee, Seongkook Heo, Sarit Kraus, and Lu Feng. 2021. DeepTake: Prediction of Driver Takeover Behavior using Multimodal Data. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21). Association for Computi...

    2021

  58. [69]

    Pernilla Qvarfordt. 2017. Gaze-informed multimodal interaction. In The Hand- book of Multimodal-Multisensor Interfaces: Foundations, User Modeling, and Com- mon Modality Combinations - Volume 1 . Vol. 14. Association for Computing Machinery and Morgan & Claypool, 365–402. http...

    2017 doi

  59. [70]

    Jonas Radlmayr, Fabian Marco Fischer, and Klaus Bengler. 2019. The Influence of Non-driving Related Tasks on Driver Availability in the Context of Condition- ally Automated Driving. In Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) , Se...

    2019 doi

  60. [71]

    Jonas Radlmayr, Christian Gold, Lutz Lorenz, Mehdi Farid, and Klaus Bengler

  61. [72]

    Bujar Raufi and Luca Longo. 2022. An Evaluation of the EEG Alpha-to-Theta and Theta-to-Alpha Band Ratios as Indexes of Mental Workload. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 16 (May 2022). doi:10.3389/fninf.2022.861967 Publisher: Frontiers

    2022

  62. [73]

    Andreas Riener, Susanne Boll, and Andrew L. Kun. 2016. Automotive User Interfaces in the Age of Automation (Dagstuhl Seminar 16262). Dagstuhl Reports 6, 6 (2016), 111–157. doi:10.4230/DagRep.6.6.111 Place: Dagstuhl, Germany Publisher: Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik

    2016 doi

  63. [74]

    Rousseeuw

    Peter J. Rousseeuw. 1987. Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 20 (Nov. 1987), 53–65. doi:10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7

    1987 doi

  64. [75]

    Boll, Wilko Heuten, Heinrich H

    Shadan Sadeghian Borojeni, Susanne C.J. Boll, Wilko Heuten, Heinrich H. Bülthoff, and Lewis Chuang. 2018. Feel the Movement: Real Motion Influ- ences Responses to Take-over Requests in Highly Automated Vehicles. InPro- ceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Co...

    2018

  65. [76]

    Neil Salkind. 2010. Encyclopedia of Research Design . Vol. 1. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California. doi:10.4135/9781412961288

    2010 doi

  66. [77]

    Kevin Joel Salubre and Dan Nathan-Roberts. 2021. Takeover Request Design in Automated Driving: A Systematic Review. Proceedings of the Human Fac- tors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 65, 1 (2021), 868–872. doi:10.1177/ 1071181321651296 _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1177/10...

    2021 doi

  67. [78]

    Emanuel Schmider, Matthias Ziegler, Erik Danay, Luzi Beyer, and Markus Bühner

  68. [79]

    S. S. Shapiro and M. B. Wilk. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples)†. Biometrika 52, 3-4 (Dec. 1965), 591–611. doi:10.1093/ biomet/52.3-4.591 _eprint: https://academic.oup.com/biomet/article-pdf/52/3- 4/591/962907/52-3-4-591.pdf

    1965

  69. [80]

    Shiferaw, Luke A

    Brook A. Shiferaw, Luke A. Downey, Justine Westlake, Bronwyn Stevens, Shantha M. W. Rajaratnam, David J. Berlowitz, Phillip Swann, and Mark E. Howard. 2018. Stationary gaze entropy predicts lane departure events in sleep-deprived drivers. Scientific Reports 8, 1 (Feb. 2018), 2...

    2018 doi

  70. [81]

    Gabbard, and Christian Conley

    Missie Smith, Joseph L. Gabbard, and Christian Conley. 2016. Head-Up vs. Head- Down Displays: Examining Traditional Methods of Display Assessment While Driving. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applicati...

    2016 doi

  71. [82]

    Missie Smith, Jillian Streeter, Gary Burnett, and Joseph L. Gabbard. 2015. Visual search tasks: the effects of head-up displays on driving and task performance. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applicati...

    2015

  72. [83]

    Stokes and Christopher D

    Alan F. Stokes and Christopher D. Wickens. 1988. Aviation displays. In Human factors in aviation. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, US, 387–431. Gomaa et al

    1988

  73. [84]

    Andriani

    Sugiono Sugiono, Denny Widhayanuriyawan, and Debrina P. Andriani. 2017. Investigating the Impact of Road Condition Complexity on Driving Workload Based on Subjective Measurement using NASA TLX. MATEC Web of Conferences 136 (2017), 02007. doi:10.1051/matecconf/201713602007 Publ...

    2017

  74. [85]

    Tsang and Michael A

    Pamela S. Tsang and Michael A. Vidulich. 2006. Mental Workload and Situ- ation Awareness. In Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics . John Wi- ley & Sons, Ltd, 243–268. doi:10.1002/0470048204.ch9 Section: 9 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/0470048204.ch9

    2006 doi

  75. [86]

    Tobias Vogelpohl, Matthias Kühn, Thomas Hummel, Tina Gehlert, and Mark Vollrath. 2018. Transitioning to manual driving requires additional time after automation deactivation. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 55 (May 2018), 464–482. doi:10.1016/j...

    2018 doi

  76. [87]

    Yingjie Wang, Qiuyu Mao, Hanqi Zhu, Jiajun Deng, Yu Zhang, Jianmin Ji, Houqiang Li, and Yanyong Zhang. 2023. Multi-Modal 3D Object Detection in Autonomous Driving: A Survey. International Journal of Computer Vision 131, 8 (Aug. 2023), 2122–2152. doi:10.1007/s11263-023-01784-z

    2023 doi

  77. [88]

    Pfeffer, and Johannes Edelmann

    Sijie Wei, Peter E. Pfeffer, and Johannes Edelmann. 2023. State of the Art: Ongoing Research in Assessment Methods for Lane Keeping Assistance Systems. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles (2023), 1–28. doi:10.1109/TIV.2023.3269156

    2023

  78. [89]

    Kathrin Zeeb, Manuela Härtel, Axel Buchner, and Michael Schrauf. 2017. Why is steering not the same as braking? The impact of non-driving related tasks on lateral and longitudinal driver interventions during conditionally automated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traf...

    2017 doi

  79. [90]

    Bo Zhang, Joost de Winter, Silvia Varotto, Riender Happee, and Marieke Martens

  80. [91]

    Jessie Yang, and Joost C

    Feng Zhou, X. Jessie Yang, and Joost C. F. de Winter. 2022. Using Eye-Tracking Data to Predict Situation Awareness in Real Time During Takeover Transitions in Conditionally Automated Driving. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans- portation Systems 23, 3 (March 2022), 2284–22...

    2022

  81. [148]

    doi:10.1016/j.trf.2020.03.001

    2020 doi

  82. [352]

    https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content_ECCV_2018/html/Tobias_Fischer_ RT-GENE_Real-Time_Eye_ECCV_2018_paper.html

  83. [2010]

    Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 6, 4 (2010), 147–151

    Is it really robust? Reinvestigating the robustness of ANOVA against violations of the normal distribution assumption. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 6, 4 (2010), 147–151. doi:10.1027/1614-2241/a000016 Place: Germany Pu...

    2010 doi

  84. [2014]

    Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 58, 1 (Sept

    How Traffic Situations and Non-Driving Related Tasks Affect the Take- Over Quality in Highly Automated Driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 58, 1 (Sept. 2014), 2063–2067. doi:10. 1177/1541931214581434 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc

    2014

  85. [2017]

    2017), 552–557

    Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option? Psicothema 29, 4 (Nov. 2017), 552–557. doi:10.7334/psicothema2016.383

    2017 doi

  86. [2019]

    Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 64 (July 2019), 285–307

    Determinants of take-over time from automated driving: A meta-analysis of 129 studies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 64 (July 2019), 285–307. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2019.04.020

    2019 doi

  87. [5205]

    doi:10.3390/s21155205 Number: 15 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.