How Important is the Plausibility of Test Scenarios Within Usability Studies for AV HMI?

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1212)


We examined the necessity for plausibilization of test scenarios within usability studies for AV HMIs in driving simulator studies. One group of drivers experienced system-initiated transitions without any obvious reason, the other with plausible reasons (e.g. fog for L3 → L2 transition, broken-down vehicle for L3 TOR). The results showed that reaction times to TORs were not influenced by the plausibility while the type of reaction was. Drivers reported less system trust but still knew how to react to the transitions. Non-plausibility did not negatively affect system acceptance. It can be concluded that plausibilization is not necessarily required for all kinds of research questions.


Plausibility Test scenarios HMI Automated driving Methodology 


  1. 1.
    NHTSA: Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA (updated version). Voluntary Guidance for Automated Driving Systems, U.S. Department of Transportation (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Naujoks, F., Hergeth, S., Wiedemann, K., Schömig, N., Forster, Y., Keinath, A.: Test procedure for evaluating the human–machine interface of vehicles with automated driving systems. Traffic Inj. Prev. 20(1), 146–151 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Radlmayr, J., Fischer, F.M., Bengler, K.: The influence of non-driving related tasks on driver availability in the context of conditionally automated driving. Chair of Ergonomics, Technical University of Munich (2019)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hergeth, S., Lorenz, L., Krems, J.F.: Prior familiarization with takeover requests affects drivers’ takeover performance and automation trust. Hum. Factors 59(3), 457–470 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Richardson, N., Flohr, L., Michel, B.: Takeover requests in highly automated truck driving: how do the amount and type of additional information influence the driver-automation interaction? Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2(4), 68 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morando, A., Victor, T., Bengler, K., Dozza, M.: Users’ response to critical situations in automated driving: rear-ends, sideswipes, and false warnings (2019)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Molnar, L.J., Ryan, L.H., Pradhan, A.K., Eby, D.W., Louis, R.M., Zakrajsek, J.S.: Understanding trust and acceptance of automated vehicles: an exploratory simulator study of transfer of control between automated and manual driving. TRF 58, 319–328 (2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Naujoks, F., Purucker, C., Wiedemann, K., Marberger, C.: Noncritical state transitions during conditionally automated driving on German freeways: effects of non–driving related tasks on takeover time and takeover quality. Hum. Factors 61(4), 596–613 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wintersberger, P., Schartmüller, C., Riener, A.: Attentive user interfaces to improve multitasking and take-over performance in automated driving: the auto-net of things. Int. J. Mob. Hum. Comput. Interact. (IJMHCI) 11(3), 40–58 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Naujoks, F., Hergeth, S., Keinath, A., Wiedemann, K., Schömig, N.: Development and application of an expert based assessment for evaluating the usability of SAE Level 3 ADS HMIs. In: ESV Conference 2019, Eindhoven, Netherlands (2019)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Würzburg Institute for Traffic Sciences (WIVW GmbH)VeitshöchheimGermany
  2. 2.BMW GroupMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations