The Influence of Non-driving Related Tasks on Driver Availability in the Context of Conditionally Automated Driving

  • Jonas RadlmayrEmail author
  • Fabian Marco Fischer
  • Klaus Bengler
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 823)


This study looked at the effect of three different non-driving related tasks (NDRT) (Surrogate Reference Task (SuRT), n-back task and a motoric task), instructed or free engagement into these tasks and the resulting take-over performance in two different take-over situations after conditionally automated driving.

We conducted a study with 53 participants in a static driving simulator. Participants were split into three groups and each group was assigned one of the three NDRT’s. Each participant per group experienced two different take-over situations twice, totaling in four take-overs. In addition, prior to a take-over, participants were either instructed to engage in the task assigned to their group or could choose their NDRT’s freely.

Dependent variables to assess driver availability were percent eyes on road (PEOR), standard deviation of the horizontal gaze dispersion (HGD) and blink frequency and changes in the center of pressure and contact area (COP) in the seat. To analyze take-over performance, we looked at gaze reaction time, take-over time, time to collision (TTC), standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP), longitudinal and lateral accelerations and subjective ratings.

Results showed significant changes for the different NDRT’s for the driver availability variables. The type of instruction did not show differences in the take-over performance, while we saw significant differences between the two different take-over situations.

We concluded that the influence from different take-over situations is high, while differences in driver availability can be measured well with the right sensors, but do not lead to different take-over performances.


Automated driving Non-driving related tasks NDRT Take-over performance 



This work results from the joint project Ko-HAF - Cooperative Highly Automated Driving and has been funded by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy based on a resolution of the German Bundestag.


  1. 1.
    SAE Standard J3016 (2016) Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to on-road motor vehicle automated driving systems, Surface vehicle recommended practiceGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marberger C, Mielenz H, Naujoks F, Radlmayr J, Bengler K, Wandtner B (2017) Understanding and applying the concept of “Driver Availability” in automated driving. In: Stanton NA (ed) Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation. Proceedings of the AHFE 2017 International Conference on Human Factors in Transportation, 17−21 July 2017, The Westin Bonaventure Hotel, Los Angeles, California. Springer, Cham, pp 595–605Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Radlmayr J, Gold C, Lorenz L, Farid M, Bengler K (2014) How traffic situations and non-driving related tasks affect the take-over quality in highly automated driving. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol 58, pp 2063–2067Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stanton NA, Young MS (1997) Automotive automation: investigating the impact on drivers’ mental workload. Int J Cogn Ergon 1:325–336Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neubauer C, Matthews G, Langheim L, Saxby D (2012) Fatigue and voluntary utilization of automation in simulated driving. Hum Factors 54:734–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Victor TW, Harbluk JL, Engström JA (2005) Sensitivity of eye-movement measures to in-vehicle task difficulty. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 8:167–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Recarte MÁ, Pérez E, Conchillo Á, Nunes LM (2008) Mental workload and visual impairment: differences between pupil, blink, and subjective rating. Span J Psychol 11:374–385Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gold CG (2016) Modeling of take-over performance in highly automated vehicle guidance. Dissertation, Technische Universität München, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gold C, Naujoks F, Radlmayr J, Bellem H, Jarosch O (2017) Testing scenarios for human factors research in level 3 automated vehicles. In: Stanton NA (ed) Advances in human aspects of transportation. Proceedings of the AHFE 2017 International Conference on Human Factors in Transportation, 17 − 21 July 2017, The Westin Bonaventure Hotel, Los Angeles. Springer, Cham, pp 551–559Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO14198:2012 (2012) Road vehicles - ergonomic aspects of transport information and control systems. Calibration tasks for methods which assess driver demand due to the use of in-vehicle systems, vol ISO/TS 14198:2012. International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland, p 16Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kirchner WK (1958) Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. J Exp Psychol 55:352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gold C, Berisha I, Bengler K (2015) Utilization of drivetime–performing non-driving related tasks while driving highly automated. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, pp 1666–1670Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonas Radlmayr
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fabian Marco Fischer
    • 1
  • Klaus Bengler
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of ErgonomicsTechnical University of MunichGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations