Investigation of Factors Affecting the Usability Evaluation of an Adaptive Cruise Control System
In this study, we investigate the factors affecting the usability evaluation of an adaptive cruise control (ACC) system. In this experiment, the participants drove a Toyota Prius car with an ACC on a highway. We sampled 215 types of driving data recorded at a frequency of 60 Hz during driving. At each of the six designated stop points on the driving course, the participants stopped their cars and evaluated the usability of the ACC system by answering the usability questionnaire for automation systems. The participants’ driving styles were measured using the driving style questionnaire. The multiple regression analyses showed that the participants’ driving styles, the ACC’s driving control, and the participants’ intervention in the driving control of the ACC influenced the usability evaluation. The results were discussed in terms of the human–automation interactions and the design principles of an ACC.
KeywordsAdaptive cruise control Usability Driving style Driving control Automation system
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP16H02353 and by the Center of Innovation Program (Nagoya University COI: Mobility Innovation Center) from Japan Science and Technology Agency.
- 2.SAE International: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to On-Road Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems. SAE J3016 (2014)Google Scholar
- 4.ISO: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) Part 11: Guidance on usability (1998). ISO 9241-11:1998Google Scholar
- 5.Neilsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Academic Press, Boston (1993)Google Scholar
- 10.Ishibashi, M., Okuwa, M., Doi, S., Akamatsu, M.: Indices for characterizing driving style and their relevance to car following behavior. In: Proceedings of SICE Annual Conference 2007, pp. 1132–1137 (2007)Google Scholar
- 11.Nornam, D.A.: Cognitive artifacts. In: Carroll, J.M. (ed.) Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface, pp. 17–38. Cambridge University Press, New York (1991)Google Scholar