Evaluation of Display Concepts for the Instrument Cluster in Urban Automated Driving

  • Alexander FeierleEmail author
  • Fabian Bücherl
  • Tobias Hecht
  • Klaus Bengler
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1026)


Instrument clusters represent the primary human-machine-interface for displaying driving-related information. Due to the changing relevance of driving-related information in automated driving, a reconfiguration of the display should be investigated. A display concept for an instrument cluster for partially and highly automated driving was developed that adapts the display and positioning of information to the level of automation. The developed concept was compared with a conventional display concept. Thirty participants took part in an experiment performing an occlusion task and a choice reaction time task. The statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in the response accuracy of the occlusion task between the display concepts. The results of the choice reaction time task show a significantly faster reaction time and in contrast to the occlusion task, a significantly lower response accuracy for the adaptive display concept compared to the conventional display concept. The subjective analysis revealed a preference of the adaptive display concept.


Human-Machine-Interface Automated driving Instrument cluster 



This research was funded by German Federal Ministry of Economics and Energy within the project @CITY.


  1. 1.
    Beggiato, M., Hartwich, F., Schleinitz, K., Krems, J., Othersen, I., Petermann-Stock, I.: What would drivers like to know during automated driving? Information needs at different levels of automation. In: 7. Tagung Fahrerassistenzsysteme (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    SAE International: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles (J3016) (2018)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rittger, L., Götze, M.: HMI strategy – recommended action. In: Bengler, K., Drüke, J., Hoffmann, S., Manstetten, D., Neukum, A. (eds.) UR:BAN Human Factors in Traffic, pp. 119–150. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden (2018)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Götze, M.: Entwicklung und Evaluation eines integrativen MMI Gesamtkonzeptes zur Handlungsunterstützung für den urbanen Verkehr. Dissertation, Technical University of Munich (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Götze, M., Bißbort, F., Petermann-Stock, I., Bengler, K.: “A careful driver is one who looks in both directions when he passes a red light” – increased demands in Urban Traffic. In: Yamamoto, S. (ed.) Human Interface and the Management of Information. Information and Knowledge in Applications and Services, pp. 229–240. Springer, Cham (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Naujoks, F., Wiedemann, K., Schömig, N., Hergeth, S., Keinath, A.: Towards guidelines and verification methods for automated vehicle HMIs. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 60, 121–136 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Melcher, V., Rauh, S., Diederichs, F., Widlroither, H., Bauer, W.: Take-over requests for automated driving. Procedia Manufact. 3, 2867–2873 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jenke, M., Lassmann, P., Fischer, M., Reichelt, F., Othersen, I., Maier, T.: Fahrererlebnis beim Wechsel zwischen Automatisierungsstufen (SAE L2/L3) (2018).
  9. 9.
    Götze, M., Schweiger, C., Eisner, J., Bengler, K.: Comparison of an old and a new head-up display design concept for urban driving. In: de Waard, D., Brookhuis, K.A., Toffetti, A., Stuiver, A., Weikert, C., Coelho, D., Manzey, D., Ünal, A.B., Röttger, S., Merat, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Europe Chapter 2015 Annual Conference (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO 16673: Road vehicles - Ergonomic aspects of transport information and control systems - Occlusion method to assess visual demand due to the use of in-vehicle systems (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gish, K.W., Staplin, L.: Human Factors Aspects of Using Head Up Displays in Automobiles. A Review of the Literature, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mueller, S.T., Piper, B.J.: The Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL) and PEBL test battery. J. Neurosci. Methods 222, 250–259 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yellott, J.I.: Correction for fast guessing and the speed-accuracy tradeoff in choice reaction time. J. Math. Psychol. 8, 159–199 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brooke, J.: SUS - a quick and dirty usability scale. In: Jordan, P.W., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B.A., McClelland, A.L. (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry, pp. 189–194 (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of NASA-TLX: results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv. Psychol. 52, 139–183 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weinberger, M., Winner, H., Bubb, H.: Adaptive cruise control field operational test—the learning phase. JSAE Rev. 22, 487–494 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Feierle
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fabian Bücherl
    • 1
  • Tobias Hecht
    • 1
  • Klaus Bengler
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of ErgonomicsTechnical University of MunichGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations