Highly Automated Driving, Secondary Task Performance, and Driver State

By Natasha Merat, A. Jamson, Frank C. H. Lai, Oliver M. J. Carsten. Hum. Factors, 2012

390 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation, Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f4005612d49e1013b2fa95c267be110378ed8819

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

1. J. D. de Winter
2. Riender Happee
3. Miltos Kyriakidis

In Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality

1. J. D. de Winter
2. Riender Happee
3. Neville A Stanton
4. Tyron Louw
5. Natasha Merat
6. Brady Michael Kuhl
7. Miltos Kyriakidis

In Social Psychology

1. J. D. de Winter
2. Riender Happee
3. Neville A Stanton
4. Pavlo Bazilinskyy
5. Tyron Louw
6. Natasha Merat
7. Brady Michael Kuhl
8. Miltos Kyriakidis

Citations in the corpus

• Engaging with Highly Automated Driving: To be or Not to be in the Loop? (2017, background): “However, as found in previous studies (Merat et al., 2012), compared to manual driving, drivers’ response was significantly slower following brief 1-minute periods of automated driving, even during engaged automation, where drivers were focused on the road scene immediately prior to the critical eve”
• Effects of adaptive cruise control and highly automated driving on workload and situation awareness: A review of the empirical evidence (2014, background): “Merat et al. (2012) found that the proportion of drivers changing lane before a traffic cone was about the same during HAD and manual driving (41 vs. 42 out of 50 drivers when not performing a cognitive secondary task, and 36 vs. 32 out of 50 drivers when performing a cognitive task).”
• Taking Over Control From Highly Automated Vehicles in Complex Traffic Situations (2016, background): “Merat et al. (2012) considered the TQT as a non-driving-related task to be similar to speaking on the phone. For manual driving, Heenan et al. (2014) used the TQT as a substitute for conversations on the phone and in combination with different traffic densities and stated that this task is “well sui”
• Auditory interfaces in automated driving: an international survey (2015, background): “84 85 Although automated driving systems are expected to improve safety, certain side effects may 86 occur regarding the human factor (e.g., Bainbridge, 1983; Desmond, Hancock, & Monette, 1998; 87 Merat et al., 2012; Brandenburg & Skottke, 2014).”