Advertisement

Haptic Feedback in Eco Driving Interfaces for Electric Vehicles: Effects on Workload and Acceptance

  • Jaume R. Perelló-March
  • Eva García-Quinteiro
  • Stewart Birrell
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 825)

Abstract

The pervasive inclusion of electric vehicles on our roads is already a reality and is here to stay in the future. Many car manufacturers are including full electric or hybrid models in their catalogues and more will come in the near future. However, since the electric vehicles’ range is still insufficient to compete with combustion-engine vehicles, for many electric vehicle owners reducing energy consumption, in order to increase available range, has become a matter of increasing concern. This paper is based on previous work conducted as part of the European Commission project ecoDriver. EcoDriver’s main purpose is to teach efficient driving strategies and facilitate drivers’ decision-making processes through several feedback modalities, in order to help increase driving efficiency. Here, the Full ecoDriver System combined with a haptic feedback gas pedal was tested in real driving conditions. In this paper, the drivers’ subjective assessments in terms of effectiveness, workload and acceptability are presented. The sample profile was composed by thirty young but experienced drivers who had to drive around an open track which allowed several possible scenarios. The main results suggest that the system effectiveness depends on the event type and the feedback modality provided. The haptic feedback did not increase workload compared to visual feedback, however, as a prototype, it showed some acceptance constraints. Results presented in this paper advance further research concerning human factors in eco-driving and haptic feedback systems research.

Keywords

Acceptance Cognitive workload Eco-driving Haptic feedback 

References

  1. 1.
    Hibberd DL, Jamson AH, Jamson SL (2015) The design of an in-vehicle assistance system to support eco-driving. Transp Res Part C Emerg, TechnolGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hof T, Conde L, Garcia E, Iviglia A, Jopson A, Lai F, Merat N, Nyberg J, Rios S, Sanchez D, Schneider S, Seewald P, Van Der Weerdt C, Wijn R, Zlocki A (2013) D11. 1 : A state of the art review and users ’ expectationsGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jamson H, Hibberd DL, Merat N (2015) Interface design considerations for an in-vehicle eco-driving assistance system. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2014.12.008
  4. 4.
    Jamson S, Kappe B, Louw T (2014) D42.1 Performance indicators and acceptance analysis plan. ecoDriver ProjectGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seewald P, Stuiver A (2014) D13. 1: evaluation plan and scenario definitionGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Birrell S, Simpkin B, Scridon S, Rollenitz L (2011) Energy efficient vehicles for road transport–EE-VERTGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beloufa S, Vailleau B, Boucheix J-M, Kemeny A, Merienne F (2014) Eco-driving with electric cars: effect of continuous and on-demand feedback on driving behavior and safety. In: 5th international conference application human factors ergonomics, pp 158–164Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mensing F (2013) Optimal energy utilization in conventional, electric and hybrid vehicles and its application to eco driving Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franke T, Arend MG, McIlroy RC, Stanton NA (2016) Ecodriving in hybrid electric vehicles – exploring challenges for user-energy interaction. Appl Ergon 55:33–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.01.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Birrell SA, Fowkes M, Jennings PA (2014) Effect of using an in-vehicle smart driving aid on real-world driver performance. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 15:1801–1810.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2014.2328357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meschtscherjakov A, Wilfinger D, Scherndl T, Tscheligi M (2009) Acceptance of future persuasive in-car interfaces towards a more economic driving behaviour. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications - AutomotiveUI 2009, p 81.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1620509.1620526
  12. 12.
    Jamson S, Hibberd DL, Jamson AH (2015) Drivers’ ability to learn eco-driving skills; effects on fuel efficient and safe driving behaviour. Transp Res Part C (Emerging Technol Spec Issue “Technologies to Support green driving”) 1–21Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Graving JS, Rakauskas ME (2010) A binary response method to determine the usability of seven in-vehicle fuel economy displays. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 54:1546–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olsson S, Burns PC. Measuring driver visual distraction with a peripheral detection task. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-13/driver-distraction/PDF/6.PDF
  15. 15.
    Östlund J, Nilsson L (2004) Deliverable 2 - HMI and Safety-Related Driver PerformanceGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muhrer E, Vollrath M (2011) The effect of visual and cognitive distraction on driver’s anticipation in a simulated car following scenario. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 14:555–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Summala H, Lamble D (1998) Driving experience and perception of the lead car’s braking when looking at in-car targets. Accid Anal Prev 30:401–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alm H, Nilsson L (1995) The effects of a mobile telephone task on driver behaviour in a car following situation. Accid Anal Prev 27:707–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beede KE, Kass SJ (2006) Engrossed in conversation: the impact of cell phones on simulated driving performance. Accid Anal Prev 38:415–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Consiglio W, Driscoll P et al (2003) Effect of cellular telephone conversations and other potential interference on reaction time in a braking response. Accid Anal Prev 35:495–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rakauskas ME, Gugerty LJ (2004) Effects of naturalistic cell phone conversations on driving performance. J Safety Res 35:453–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ranney TA, Harbluk JL (2005) Effects of voice technology on test track driving performance: implications for driver distraction. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 47:439–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reed MP, Green PA (1999) Comparison of driving performance on-road and in a low-cost simulator using a concurrent telephone. Ergonomics 42:1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Rosario H, Louredo M (2010) Efficacy and feeling of a vibrotactile frontal collision warning implemented in a haptic pedal. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 13:80–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Adell E, Várhelyi A, Hjälmdahl M (2008) Auditory and haptic systems for in-car speed management - a comparative real life study. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 11:445–458.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2008.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Birrell SA, Young MS, Weldon AM (2013) Vibrotactile pedals: provision of haptic feedback to support economical driving. Ergonomics 56:282–292.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2012.760750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Spiessl W, Hussmann H (2011) Assessing error recognition in automated driving. IET Intell Transp Syst 5:103.  https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-its.2010.0102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wickens CD (2008) Multiple resources and mental workload. Hum Factors 50:449–455.  https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Perelló JR, Gomila A, García-Quinteiro EM, Miranda M (2017) Testing new solutions for eco-driving: haptic gas pedals in electric vehicles. J Transp Technol 7:1–25.  https://doi.org/10.4236/jtts.2017.71001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol 52:139–183.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Harbluk JL, Noy YI, Trbovich PL, Eizenman M (2007) An on-road assessment of cognitive distraction: Impacts on drivers’ visual behavior and braking performance. Accid Anal Prev 39:372–379.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2006.08.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Horberry T, Anderson J, Regan MA, Triggs TJ, Brown J (2006) Driver distraction: the effects of concurrent in-vehicle tasks, road environment complexity and age on driving performance. Accid Anal Prev 38:185–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.09.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Strayer D, Cooper J, Turrill, J (2013) Measuring cognitive distraction in the automobile 52 (2013)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jeon M, Davison BK, Nees, MA, Wilson J, Walker BN, Street C (2009) Enhanced auditory menu cues improve dual task performance and are preferred with in-vehicle technologies. Billboard 91–98.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1620509.1620528
  35. 35.
    Van Der Laan JD, Heino A, De Waard D (1997) A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 5:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-090X(96)00025-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Birrell S, Fowkes M, Stubbs D (2012) Evaluation of smart driving advisors: smartphone apps or value added services. In: Driver behaviour and training, pp 451–470Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Festa: FESTA Handbook Version 4 Revised by FOT-NET (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaume R. Perelló-March
    • 1
  • Eva García-Quinteiro
    • 2
  • Stewart Birrell
    • 1
  1. 1.WMG, The University of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.CTAG, Polígono Industrial a Granxa (Porriño)PontevedraSpain

Personalised recommendations