Measuring drivers’ takeover performance in varying levels of automation: Considering the influence of cognitive secondary task

Mixed control by driver and automated system will remain in use for decades until fully automated driving is perfected. Thus, drivers must be able to accurately regain control of vehicles in a timely manner when the automated system sends a takeover request (TOR) at its limitation. Therefore, determining the factors that affect drivers’ takeover quality at varying levels of automated driving is important. Previous studies have shown that visually distracting secondary tasks impair drivers’ takeover performance and increase the subjective workload. However, the influence of purely cognitive distracting secondary tasks on drivers’ takeover performance and how this influence varies at different levels of automation are still unknown. Hence, a 5 (driving modes) × 3 (cognitive secondary tasks) factorial design with the within-subject factors was adopted for this driving simulator experiment. The sample consisted of 21 participants. The participants’ subjective workloads were recorded by the NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). Results showed that compared to manual driving conditions, the drivers’ subjective workloads were significantly reduced in both partially and highly automated driving conditions, even with a TOR, confirming the benefit of the automated driving system in terms of reducing the driving workload. Moreover, the drivers exhibited a lower takeover behavior quality at high levels of automation than manual driving in terms of increased reaction time, abnormal performance, standard deviation of lane position, lane departure probability, and reduced minimum of time to collision. However, at the highly automated driving condition, the drivers’ longitudinal driving safety and ability to follow instructions improved when performing a highly cognitive secondary task. This phenomenon possibly occurred because automated driving conditions lead to an underload phenomenon, and the execution of highly cognitive tasks transfers drivers into moderate load, which helps with the drivers’ takeover performance.     

Investigating explanations in conditional and highly automated driving: The effects of situation awareness and modality

With the level of automation increases in vehicles, such as conditional and highly automated vehicles (AVs), drivers are becoming increasingly out of the control loop, especially in unexpected driving scenarios. Although it might be not necessary to require the drivers to intervene on most occasions, it is still important to improve drivers’ situation awareness (SA) in unexpected driving scenarios to improve their trust in and acceptance of AVs. In this study, we conceptualized SA at the levels of perception (SA L1), comprehension (SA L2), and projection (SA L3), and proposed an SA level-based explanation framework based on explainable AI. Then, we examined the effects of these explanations and their modalities on drivers’ situational trust, cognitive workload, as well as explanation satisfaction. A three (SA levels: SA L1, SA L2 and SA L3) by two (explanation modalities: visual, visual + audio) between-subjects experiment was conducted with 340 participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. The results indicated that by designing the explanations using the proposed SA-based framework, participants could redirect their attention to the important objects in the traffic and understand their meaning for the AV system. This improved their SA and filled the gap of understanding the correspondence of AV’s behavior in the particular situations which also increased their situational trust in AV. The results showed that participants reported the highest trust with SA L2 explanations, although the mental workload was assessed higher in this level. The results also provided insights into the relationship between the amount of information in explanations and modalities, showing that participants were more satisfied with visual-only explanations in the SA L1 and SA L2 conditions and were more satisfied with visual and auditory explanations in the SA L3 condition. Finally, we found that the cognitive workload was also higher in SA L2, possibly because the participants were actively interpreting the results, consistent with a higher level of situational trust. These findings demonstrated that properly designed explanations, based on our proposed SA-based framework, had significant implications for explaining AV behavior in conditional and highly automated driving.     

The role of psychological factors on the choice of different driving controls: On manual,partial, and highly automated controls

The present study investigates the role of psychological factors on the choice of three controls (modes) in driving a vehicle, namely highly automated, partially automated, and manual control. Traditional driving habits, resistance to change, and behavioural beliefs were all assessed along with individual and socioeconomic variables. Using survey data (n = 595) of car users, a model was developed to predict the share of different driving controls and determine the effects of psychological variables. Results indicate that up to 55% of people prefer driving with highly automated control, and 30% prefer partially automated control. Behavioural beliefs (e.g., attitudes toward highly automated control) are not as critical to driving control as habits. People with stronger driving habits are less likely to use highly automated controls. A one-unit increase in worry could reduce driving in highly automated control by 5.5% and increase manual control by 4.5%, and those who welcome the new technologies are more likely to prefer highly automated control. Some practical policy solutions are also provided.     

Assessing the effect of long-automated driving operation,repeated take-over requests,and driver’s characteristics on commercial motor vehicle drivers’ driving behavior and reaction time in highly automated vehicles

Automated Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs) have the potential to reduce the occurrence of crashes, enhance traffic flow, and reduce the stress of driving to a larger extent. Since fully automated driving (SAE Level 5) is not yet available, automated driving systems cannot perform all driving tasks under all road conditions. Drivers need to regain the vehicle’s control when the system reaches its maximum operational capabilities. This transition from automated to manual is referred to as Take-Over Request (TOR). Evaluating driver’s performance after TORs and assessing effective parameters have gained much attention in recent years. However, few studies have addressed CMV drivers’ driving behavior after TOR and the effect of long-automated driving and repeated TORs. This paper aims to address this gap and gain behavioral insights into CMV drivers’ driving behavior after TOR and assess the effect of the duration of automated operation before TOR, repeated TORs, and driver characteristics (e.g., age, gender, education, and driving history). To accomplish this, we designed a 40-minutes experiment on a driving simulator and assessed the responses of certified CMV drivers to TORs. Drivers’ reaction time and driving behavior indices (e.g., acceleration, velocity, and headway) are compared to continuous manual driving to measure driving behavior differences. Results showed that CMV drivers’ driving behavior changes significantly after the transition to manual regardless of the number of TORs and the duration of automated driving. Findings suggest that 30 min of automated operation intensifies the effect of TOR on driving behaviors. In addition, repeated TOR improves reaction times to TOR and reduces drivers' maximum and minimum speed after TORs. Driver’s age and driving history showed significant effects on reaction time and some driving behavior indices. The findings of this paper provide valuable information to automotive companies and transportation planners on the nature of driver behavior changes due to the carryover effects of manual driving right after automated driving episodes in highly automated vehicles.     

Urgent and non-urgent takeovers during conditional automated driving on public roads: The impact of different training programmes

Supplying training to drivers that teaches them about automated driving and requests to intervene may help them to build and maintain a mental representation of how automation works and thereby improve takeover performance. We aimed to investigate the effect of different types of training programmes about the functioning of automated driving on drivers’ takeover performance during real driving. Fifty-two participants were split into three groups for training sessions: paper (short notice), video (3-minute tutorial) and practice (short drive). After the training, participants experienced automated driving and both urgent and non-urgent requests to intervene in a Wizard-of-Oz vehicle on public roads. Participants’ takeover time, visual behaviour, mental workload, and flow levels during the requests to intervene were assessed. Our results indicated that in urgent circumstances, participants’ takeover response times were faster in the practice training condition compared to the other training conditions. Nevertheless, the practice training session did not present any other positive effect on drivers’ visual behaviour. This could indicate that prior training, particularly when reinforcing drivers' motor skills, improved their takeover response time at the latest motor stages rather than in the early sensory states. In addition, the analysis of in-vehicle videos revealed that participants’ attention was captured in the first place by the in-vehicle human-machine interface during the urgent request to intervene. This highlights the importance for designers to display information on the HMI in an appropriate way to optimise drivers’ situation awareness in critical situations.     

Behavioural adaptation and effectiveness of a Forward Collision Warning System depending on a secondary cognitive task

Forward Collision Warning Systems (FCWS) have been designed to enhance road safety by reducing the number of rear-end collisions. Nevertheless, little is known about how drivers adapt their behaviour over time when using this kind of system. In addition, these systems are expected to aid particularly distracted drivers. However, previous research has suggested that the effectiveness of the system could depend on the difficulty level of the secondary task. The objective of this study on driving simulator was twofold. Firstly, it consisted in evaluating the behavioural adaptation to an FCWS as well as analysing the possible consequences of driving without the system after a short period of adaptation. Secondly, it was to evaluate the effectiveness of the system according to two different difficulty levels of a cognitive secondary task. The results showed that drivers adapted their behaviour positively when the system was introduced. Nevertheless, both the effectiveness and the behavioural adaptation in the short term were dependent on the cognitive load induced by the secondary task. These findings suggest that the warning needs some attentional resources to be processed. Finally, no negative or transfer effect was observed following the removal of the system after a short period of adaptation.     

Interaction strategies with advanced driver assistance systems

When using advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) drivers need to calibrate their level of trust and interaction strategy to changes in the driving context and possible consequent reduction of system reliability (e.g. in harsh weather conditions). By investigating and identifying categories of drivers who choose inadequate interaction strategies, it is possible to address unsafe usage with e.g. tutoring lessons tailored to the respective driver category. This paper presents two studies investigating categories of drivers who apply different interaction strategies when using ADAS. Study I was designed as an exploratory field study with 37 participants interacting with a SAE level 2 system. For the exploratory study, it was important to observe and understand the interaction strategies in a driving context which entails the real complexity of the driving task. The experimental set-up of study II (simulator study), however, allowed to clearly interpret the interaction strategies as either calibrated or un-calibrated by varying the situational risk. Participants (N = 33) were driving in a situation where the system was either working reliably (low-risk condition) or in a situation where the system displayed repeatedly errors under harsh weather conditions (high-risk condition). Cluster analyses with the variables trust, monitoring behavior towards the system and usage behavior were performed to analyze potential categories of drivers. Extreme driver categories with interaction strategies indicative for both misuse and disuse were observed in both studies. In study I, drivers were categorized as either highly trusting attentive, moderately trusting attentive, moderately inattentive, inattentive or skeptical. In study II, drivers were categorized as either un-calibrated, calibrated, inconsistent or skeptical. Taken together, results underline the need of tutoring systems that are tailored for different driver categories.     

Effects of adaptive cruise control and highly automated driving on workload and situation awareness: A review of the empirical evidence

Adaptive cruise control (ACC), a driver assistance system that controls longitudinal motion, has been introduced in consumer cars in 1995. A next milestone is highly automated driving (HAD), a system that automates both longitudinal and lateral motion. We investigated the effects of ACC and HAD on drivers’ workload and situation awareness through a meta-analysis and narrative review of simulator and on-road studies. Based on a total of 32 studies, the unweighted mean self-reported workload was 43.5% for manual driving, 38.6% for ACC driving, and 22.7% for HAD (0% = minimum, 100 = maximum on the NASA Task Load Index or Rating Scale Mental Effort). Based on 12 studies, the number of tasks completed on an in-vehicle display relative to manual driving (100%) was 112% for ACC and 261% for HAD. Drivers of a highly automated car, and to a lesser extent ACC drivers, are likely to pick up tasks that are unrelated to driving. Both ACC and HAD can result in improved situation awareness compared to manual driving if drivers are motivated or instructed to detect objects in the environment. However, if drivers are engaged in non-driving tasks, situation awareness deteriorates for ACC and HAD compared to manual driving. The results of this review are consistent with the hypothesis that, from a Human Factors perspective, HAD is markedly different from ACC driving, because the driver of a highly automated car has the possibility, for better or worse, to divert attention to secondary tasks, whereas an ACC driver still has to attend to the roadway.     

On-Road vehicle study of the experience of automated driving

Prior studies of automated driving have focused on drivers’ evaluations of advanced driving assistance systems and their knowledge of the technology. An on-road experiment with novice drivers who had never used automated systems was conducted to examine the effects of the automation on the driving experience. Participants drove a Tesla Model 3 sedan with level 2 automation engaged or not engaged on a 4-lane interstate freeway. They reported that driving was more enjoyable and less stressful during automated driving than manual driving. They also indicated that they were less anxious and nervous, and able to relax more with the automation. Their intentions to use and purchase automated systems in the future were correlated with the favorableness of their automated driving experiences. The positive experiences of the first-time users suggest that consumers may not need a great deal of persuading to develop an appreciation for partially automated vehicles.     

Effects of explanation-based knowledge regarding system functions and driver’s roles on driver takeover during conditionally automated driving: A test track study

The present study was designed to examine the influence of explanation-based knowledge regarding system functions and the driver’s role in conditionally automated driving (Level 3, as defined in SAE J3016). In particular, we studied how safely and successfully drivers assume control of the vehicle when encountering situations that exceed the automation parameters. This examination was conducted through a test-track experiment. Thirty-two younger drivers (mean age = 37.3 years) and 24 older drivers (mean age = 71.1 years) participated in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively. Adopting a between-participants design, in each experiment the participants were divided into two age- and sex-matched groups that were given differing levels of explanation-based knowledge concerning the system limitations of automated driving. The only information given to the less-informed groups was that, during automated driving, drivers may be required to occasionally assume control of the vehicle. The well-informed groups were given the same information, as well as details regarding the auditory-visual alerts produced by the human–machine interface (HMI) during requests to intervene (RtIs), and examples of situations where RtIs would be issued. Ten and nine RtI events were staged for each participant in Experiment 1 and 2, respectively; the participants performed a non-driving-related task while the automated driving system was functioning. For both experiments it was found that, for all RtI events, more participants in the well-informed groups than the less-informed groups successfully assumed control of the vehicle. These results suggest that, in addition to providing information regarding the possible occurrence of RtIs, explanations of HMI and RtI-related situations are effective for helping both younger and older drivers safely and successfully negotiate such events.     

Does surrounding traffic benefit from an assisted driver with traffic light assistance system?

Traffic light assistance systems enable drivers more energy and time efficient driving behavior at signalized intersections. However, most vehicles will not be equipped with such systems in the next years. These unequipped vehicles’ drivers (UVDs) may benefit from assisted drivers, if they would adapt their behavior. This paper outlines how UVDs (N = 60) interpreted and reacted to a driver with traffic light assistance system. We used a multi-driver simulator with three drivers driving in a car-following scenario. The lead driver was not a participant, but a confederate who was followed by two UVDs. The confederate was apparently equipped either with or without a traffic light assistance system. The traffic light assistance system consisted of two functionalities: a Green Light Optimal Speed Advisory and a start-up assistance system with two different parametrizations. These functionalities aimed at preventing unnecessary changes in speed and reducing the start-up lost time after signal change. The results showed that UVDs benefited from the driving behavior of the confederate with traffic light assistance system. However, the assisted driving behavior was hardly understood and partly rated as aversive by the UVDs. We discuss how to enhance behavioral adaptation of UVDs. We also outline which negative consequences may result from encounters of driver with systems and UVDs. We assume that how UVDs react towards drivers with systems may be one factor contributing to a successful launch of such systems.     

Frequency and impact of hands-free telephoning while driving – Results from naturalistic driving data

The frequency and impact of hands-free telephoning while driving was analyzed based on naturalistic driving data from 106 drivers. The results from naturalistic driving data were compared with the results from experimental approaches. The implication of the overall results and the differences across drivers are discussed. Continuous information on the usage of the hands-free phone equipment was available which made it possible to include the entire database (∼1 000 000 km) in a completely automatized analysis. Results show that drivers talked on a hands-free phone about 11% of driving time. There were large differences across drivers in the frequency and usage of a hands-free phone. While telephoning, an adaptation of driving behavior could be found. Drivers slowed down and increased their distance to the lead vehicle. Furthermore, during telephoning, an overall reduction of potentially critical driving situations was found. Overall, the results indicate that compensation for telephoning was carried out with a long-term change of driving behavior, rather than with a short term adaption to the situation.     

Can we adapt to highly automated vehicles as passengers? The mediating effect of trust and situational awareness on role adaption moderated by automated driving style

The emergence of highly automated driving technology provides safe and convenient travel while also causing user inadaptation. Therefore, based on human factors engineering, it is necessary to study highly automated vehicles (HAVs) that meet different user needs. Thus, this study aims to investigate the relationships between state anxiety, situational awareness, trust, and role adaptation. The adaptation model is constructed to conduct a study on the adaptation of HAVs with different automated styles when user roles change from driver to passenger. Simulated riding was conducted in the HAV experiment (N = 117), collecting scale data after each participant had experienced each automated driving style. A structural equation modeling approach was applied to analyze the adaptation model based on scale data. The results showed that there was a significant correlation between state anxiety, situational awareness, trust, and role adaptation. State anxiety has a significant negative predictive effect on trust, situational awareness, and role adaptation. In addition to its direct impact on role adaptation, state anxiety also has an indirect effect on role adaptation through situational awareness and trust. Furthermore, the automated driving style has been confirmed to have a moderating role in the relationship between the direct and indirect effects of state anxiety and role adaptation. Our findings contribute to multiple streams of the literature and have important implications for designing personalized automated driving to improve user acceptance.     

Take-over requests in highly automated driving: A crowdsourcing survey on auditory,vibrotactile, and visual displays

An important research question in the domain of highly automated driving is how to aid drivers in transitions between manual and automated control. Until highly automated cars are available, knowledge on this topic has to be obtained via simulators and self-report questionnaires. Using crowdsourcing, we surveyed 1692 people on auditory, visual, and vibrotactile take-over requests (TORs) in highly automated driving. The survey presented recordings of auditory messages and illustrations of visual and vibrational messages in traffic scenarios of various urgency levels. Multimodal TORs were the most preferred option in high-urgency scenarios. Auditory TORs were the most preferred option in low-urgency scenarios and as a confirmation message that the system is ready to switch from manual to automated mode. For low-urgency scenarios, visual-only TORs were more preferred than vibration-only TORs. Beeps with shorter interpulse intervals were perceived as more urgent, with Stevens’ power law yielding an accurate fit to the data. Spoken messages were more accepted than abstract sounds, and the female voice was more preferred than the male voice. Preferences and perceived urgency ratings were similar in middle- and high-income countries. In summary, this international survey showed that people’s preferences for TOR types in highly automated driving depend on the urgency of the situation.     

Do drivers accept cooperative behavior of their automated vehicle on highways?

Automated cooperatively interacting vehicles will change the future of traffic completely. Such vehicles will be capable of planning and carrying out maneuvers based on vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication, enabling a safer driving experience. However, this gain of safety will only be effective if drivers use and accept the decisions made by advanced automated technology. Especially when drivers are cognitively distracted, new strategies might be necessary, e.g., by further explaining the reason for a cooperative decision.In a driving simulator study, we investigated the acceptance of lane change maneuvers in cooperative situations carried out by an automated vehicle on a two-lane German highway. When the automated system detected a potential lane change ahead, it carried out one of three possible maneuvers: accelerate, decelerate, or maintain speed. Participants (N = 20) were asked whether they accepted the system’s behavior either while being cognitively distracted or in an attentive state. Thus, we investigated the influence of a cognitively demanding secondary task and, in addition, further situational characteristics (Scope of action, Criticality for the lane-changing vehicle, Display of intention) on the acceptance towards the system’s behavior. Moreover, participants had to rate the perceived situation’s criticality.Results underlined the importance of explicit indication of the intention to change lanes. Furthermore, increased cognitive load led to a higher acceptance of the defensive system behavior. This study contributes to the development of a user-centered interface and interaction strategy for cooperative interacting vehicles.     

What happens when drivers of automated vehicles take over control in critical lane change situations?

According to legislation, take-overs initiated by the driver must always be possible during automated driving. For example, when drivers mistrust the automation to handle a critical and hazardous lane change, they might intervene and take over control while the automation is performing the maneuver. In these situations, drivers may have little time to avoid an accident and can be exposed to high lateral forces. Due to lacking research, it is yet unknown if they recognize the criticality of the situation and how they behave and perform to manage it. In a driving simulator study, participants (N = 60) accomplished eight double lane changes to evade obstacles in their lane. Time-to-collision and traction usage were varied to establish different degrees of objective criticality. To manipulate these parameters as required, participants were triggered to take over control by an acoustic cue. This setting shows what might happen if drivers disable the automation and complete the maneuver themselves. The results of the experiment demonstrate that drivers rated objectively more critical driving situations as more critical and responded to the hazard very fast over all experimental conditions. However, their behavior was more extreme with respect to decelerating and steering than necessary. This impaired driving performance and increased the risk of lane departures and collisions. The results of the experiment can be used to develop an assistance system that supports driver-initiated take-overs.     

How to identify the take-over criticality in conditionally automated driving? An examination using drivers’ physiological parameters and situational factors

Autonomous vehicles and advanced driver assistance technology are growing exponentially, and vehicles equipped with conditional automation, which has features like Traffic Jam Pilot and Highway Assist, are already available in the market. And this could expose the driver to a stressful driving condition during the takeover mission. To identify stressful takeover situations and better interact with automated systems, the relationship and effect between drivers’ physiological responses, situational factors (e.g., takeover request [TOR] lead time, takeover frequencies, and scenario types), and takeover criticality were investigated.34 participants were involved in a series of takeover events in a simulated driving environment, which are varied by different TOR lead time conditions and driving scenes. The situational factors, drivers’ skin conductance (SC), heart rate (HR), gaze behaviors, and takeover criticality ratings were collected and analyzed. The results indicated that drivers had a higher takeover criticality rating when they experienced a shorter TOR lead time level or at first to fourth take-overs. Besides, drivers who encountered a dynamic obstacle reported higher takeover criticality ratings when they were at the same Time to collision (TTC). We also observed that the takeover situations of higher criticality have larger driver’s maximum HR, mean pupil size, and maximum change in the SC (relative to the initial value of a takeover stage). Those findings of situational factors and physiological responses can provide additional support for the designing of adaptive alert systems and environmental soothing technology in conditionally automated driving, which will improve the takeover performances and drivers’ experience.     

Longer-term exposure vs training: Their effect on drivers' mental models of ADAS technology

Drivers often learn about the advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) on their vehicles over time and through trial and error. While this experience can aid drivers’ understanding about the systems, it may not necessarily lead to sufficient and accurate mental models, especially concerning less frequent “edge case” situations. This study recruited 39 new owners of vehicles equipped with ADAS technology to which the owners were naïve. The initial mental model of these owners was evaluated using a mental model assessment. To understand changes in mental models over time the assessment was repeated six times over the course of approximately 6 months. Weekly mileage, technology usage, and information regarding their exposure to edge case scenarios was also collected. At the end of the 6 months, participants completed a simulator drive using adaptive cruise control (ACC) that included several edge cases. Over the course of the first 6 months of vehicle ownership, drivers’ scores on the mental model assessment improved. These improvements were largely due to increased understanding of the technology’s limitations as opposed to improvements in knowledge about system function. With respect to driving performance in the simulator session, the mental model scores were not predictive of responses to the edge cases. However, a comparison of those mental model scores against weak and strong mental model benchmark scores gathered in a previous study revealed that mental models improve over 6 months (for some drivers), but not to the level of understanding of a group that received a short but extensive introduction to ACC. This suggests that there is room for improvement in how drivers gain understanding about driver support features and further underscores the need of training and education for proper use and interactions.     

Effects of different non-driving-related-task display modes on drivers’ eye-movement patterns during take-over in an automated vehicle

Highly automated vehicles relieve drivers from driving tasks, allowing them to engage in non-driving-related-tasks (NDRTs). However, drivers are required to take over control in certain circumstances due to the limitations of highly automated vehicles. This study focused on drivers’ eye-movement patterns during take-overs when an NDRT (watching videos) was presented via a head-up-display (HUD) and a mobile device display (MDD), compared to no NDRT as the baseline. The experiment was conducted in a high-fidelity driving simulator with real-world driving videos scenarios. Forty-six participants took part in the experiment by completing three drives in three counterbalanced conditions (HUD, MDD and baseline). A take-over-request was issued towards the end of automated driving requesting drivers to stop the NDRT and take over control. Eye-movement data including pupil diameter, blinks, glance duration and number of AOI (Area of Interest) were collected and analysed. The results show that during automated driving, drivers were more engaged in the MDD NDRT with smaller pupil diameter and shorter glance duration on the front scenario compared to the HUD and baseline modes. The number of AOI was reduced during automated driving in both MDD and HUD modes. The take-over-request redirected drivers’ visual attention back to the driving task from NDRT by increasing drivers’ pupil diameter, glance duration and number of AOI. However, the effect of MDD NDRT on pupil diameter and glance duration continued even after the take-over-request when the NDRT was terminated. The study demonstrated HUD is a better display to help maintain drivers’ attention on the road.     

Handing control back to drivers: Exploring the effects of handover procedure during transitions from Highly Automated Driving

The operational capabilities of automated driving features are limited and sometimes require drivers’ intervention through a transition of control. Assistance at an operational level might be extremely beneficial during transitions but the literature lacks evidence on the topic. A simulator study was conducted to investigate the potential impacts that lateral assistance systems might have while the Automated Driving System (ADS) hands back control to the driver. Results showed that drivers benefitted from a strong Lane Keeping Assist during the first phase of the transfer, helping them to keep the lane centre. However, assisting the drivers at an operational level did not enhance their capability of addressing a more complex task, presented as a lane change. In fact, it was more task-specific assistance (Blind-spot assist) that allowed drivers to better cope with the tactical decision that the lane change required. Moreover, longer exposure to lane-keeping assist systems helped them in gaining awareness of the surrounding traffic and improved the way drivers interacted with the Blind-spot assist.