Workload Assessment of Human-Machine Interface: A Simulator Study with Psychophysiological Measures

Yuan-Cheng Liu, Nikol Figalová, Jürgen Jürgen, Philipp Hock, M. Baumann, K. Bengler
{"title":"Workload Assessment of Human-Machine Interface: A Simulator Study with Psychophysiological Measures","authors":"Yuan-Cheng Liu, Nikol Figalová, Jürgen Jürgen, Philipp Hock, M. Baumann, K. Bengler","doi":"10.54941/ahfe1004172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Human-machine Interface (HMI) is critical for safety during automated driving, as it serves as the only media between the automated system and human users. To guarantee an understandable and transparent HMI, an evaluation method is urgently needed. However, there hasn't been a standardized and objective assessment method for HMI transparency. The methods used to evaluate HMI nowadays are primarily subjective and not efficient. To bridge the gap, an objective and standardized HMI assessment method was proposed in a previous study, but the adaptation to a simulator environment was not validated. Hence, the objective of this study is to first identify suitable objective workload measures in a driving context before incorporating them into the proposed transparency assessment method. In this study, two psychophysiological measures, electrocardiography (ECG) and electrodermal activity (EDA) were evaluated for their effectiveness in finding differences in mental workload among different HMI designs in a driving simulator. Three HMI designs with different transparency were developed and used as independent variables. Besides the root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD) between normal heartbeats from the ECG and the skin conductance response (SCR) from the EDA, self-reported NASA-TLX scores were also evaluated and considered as dependent variables. The study was conducted in a static driving simulator with a field of view of 120 degrees. A total of 24 participants were recruited, and each experienced 12 trials counterbalanced for HMI designs and driving scenarios. Participants were asked to monitor the HMI constantly and activate SAE Level 2 automated driving system whenever they felt comfortable. During the interaction, the eye tracker was applied to identify the time points when participants were gazing at the HMI designs. These time points were later used as references to calculate the corresponding RMSSD and SCR. Results showed that the RMSSD from ECG and the SCR from EDA were able to identify significant differences in objective mental workload when interacting with in-vehicle HMIs. Plus, the same correlations among HMI designs for two psychophysiological measures and the NASA-TLX were also identified. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to use psychophysiological measures to estimate the mental workload when interacting with HMI during automated driving. The results of this study could be used as a firm ground for future research. The findings not only help identify suitable objective workload measures for the interaction with HMI during simulator driving but also serve as the first step toward a standardized transparency assessment method.","PeriodicalId":231376,"journal":{"name":"Human Systems Engineering and Design (IHSED 2023): Future Trends\n and Applications","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Systems Engineering and Design (IHSED 2023): Future Trends\n and Applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1004172","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Human-machine Interface (HMI) is critical for safety during automated driving, as it serves as the only media between the automated system and human users. To guarantee an understandable and transparent HMI, an evaluation method is urgently needed. However, there hasn't been a standardized and objective assessment method for HMI transparency. The methods used to evaluate HMI nowadays are primarily subjective and not efficient. To bridge the gap, an objective and standardized HMI assessment method was proposed in a previous study, but the adaptation to a simulator environment was not validated. Hence, the objective of this study is to first identify suitable objective workload measures in a driving context before incorporating them into the proposed transparency assessment method. In this study, two psychophysiological measures, electrocardiography (ECG) and electrodermal activity (EDA) were evaluated for their effectiveness in finding differences in mental workload among different HMI designs in a driving simulator. Three HMI designs with different transparency were developed and used as independent variables. Besides the root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD) between normal heartbeats from the ECG and the skin conductance response (SCR) from the EDA, self-reported NASA-TLX scores were also evaluated and considered as dependent variables. The study was conducted in a static driving simulator with a field of view of 120 degrees. A total of 24 participants were recruited, and each experienced 12 trials counterbalanced for HMI designs and driving scenarios. Participants were asked to monitor the HMI constantly and activate SAE Level 2 automated driving system whenever they felt comfortable. During the interaction, the eye tracker was applied to identify the time points when participants were gazing at the HMI designs. These time points were later used as references to calculate the corresponding RMSSD and SCR. Results showed that the RMSSD from ECG and the SCR from EDA were able to identify significant differences in objective mental workload when interacting with in-vehicle HMIs. Plus, the same correlations among HMI designs for two psychophysiological measures and the NASA-TLX were also identified. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to use psychophysiological measures to estimate the mental workload when interacting with HMI during automated driving. The results of this study could be used as a firm ground for future research. The findings not only help identify suitable objective workload measures for the interaction with HMI during simulator driving but also serve as the first step toward a standardized transparency assessment method.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人机界面工作负荷评估:基于心理生理测量的模拟器研究
人机界面(HMI)是自动驾驶系统与人类用户之间的唯一媒介,对自动驾驶的安全性至关重要。为了保证人机界面的可理解性和透明性,迫切需要一种评价方法。然而,目前还没有一种规范、客观的评价人机界面透明度的方法。目前评价人机交互的方法主要是主观的,效率不高。为了弥补这一差距,在之前的研究中提出了一种客观、标准化的人机界面评估方法,但其对模拟器环境的适应性尚未得到验证。因此,本研究的目的是在将其纳入拟议的透明度评估方法之前,首先在驾驶环境中确定合适的客观工作量测量。在这项研究中,两种心理生理测量,心电图(ECG)和皮电活动(EDA)评估其有效性,以发现不同的HMI设计在驾驶模拟器的心理工作量的差异。开发了三种不同透明度的HMI设计,并将其作为自变量。除了心电图显示的正常心跳与EDA显示的皮肤电导反应(SCR)之间的连续差异均方根(RMSSD)外,还评估了自我报告的NASA-TLX评分,并将其视为因变量。这项研究是在一个120度视野的静态驾驶模拟器中进行的。总共招募了24名参与者,每个人都经历了12次针对人机界面设计和驾驶场景的试验。参与者被要求持续监控人机界面,并在他们感到舒适时激活SAE 2级自动驾驶系统。在交互过程中,使用眼动仪识别参与者注视人机界面设计的时间点。这些时间点随后被用作计算相应RMSSD和SCR的参考。结果表明,心电图RMSSD和EDA SCR能够识别出与车载人机界面交互时客观心理负荷的显著差异。此外,两种心理生理测量的人机界面设计与NASA-TLX之间也存在相同的相关性。据我们所知,这项研究是第一次使用心理生理学测量来估计在自动驾驶过程中与人机界面交互时的心理工作量。本研究结果可作为今后研究的坚实基础。研究结果不仅有助于确定在模拟驾驶过程中与人机界面交互的合适的客观工作量测量,而且是标准化透明度评估方法的第一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
What To Do When The Requirements Are Unknown? - Development of a Simulator for Excretory Care The effect of operation steps on the efficiency of human-computer interaction DJaytopia: a hybrid intelligent DJ co-remixing system Human-Centered Design for a Virtual Human led mHealth Intervention for Suicide Prevention OSH risks of health and social care workers working in clients' homes in Finland
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1