www.ietdl.

org
Published in IET Intelligent Transport Systems Received on 30th July 2010 Revised on 19th February 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-its.2010.0112

Special Issue Selected papers from the 2nd European Conference on Human Centred Design in ITS
ISSN 1751-956X

Semi-autonomous advanced parking assistants: do they really have to be learned if steering is automated?
I. Totzke S. Jessberger D. Mu hlbacher H.-P. Kru ger
Center for Trafc Sciences (IZVW), University of Wuerzburg, Ro ntgenring 11, 97070 Wuerzburg, Germany E-mail: totzke@psychologie.uni-wuerzburg.de

Abstract: Several studies have demonstrated positive effects of advanced parking assistants (APA) on driver comfort and parking performance. However, learning effects while handling the APA system and possible transfer effects on manual parking have not yet been discussed. In this study, N 18 subjects parked parallel in a test area (26 manoeuvres) and in real trafc (nine manoeuvres). One half of the manoeuvres was done without a parking assistant, one half with a semi-autonomous APA system that utilises automatic steering. The APA system did not control speed by accelerating or braking. Parking performance and glance behaviour in selected manoeuvres were analysed as well as drivers judgements and observations by an in-vehicle experimenter. Consistent with earlier studies, the APA system facilitates parking. Learning effects particularly appear in glance behaviour and maximum velocity during the rst parking motion as also do the number of errors while handling the system. Using the APA system repeatedly might inuence parking without an assistant as well: the more manoeuvres are carried out with the APA system, the more often the drivers look into the display during manual parking. The implications of this study are discussed.

Introduction

Parking manoeuvres are some of the most difcult and loading tasks while driving: entering a parking space demands a higher cognitive and a higher physical workload when compared with other driving tasks (e.g. making a turn, change of lane) [1]. Consistent with this study, it is shown that drivers are highly inuenced by surrounding trafc. In addition, narrow parking spaces and blind spots owing to newer vehicle designs makes parking more difcult for the driver [2, 3]. Additionally, 0.83% of 1.2 million reported accidents, reported in Michigan in the years 2000 2002, occurred while parking. In 51% of these cases another moving vehicle was touched, whereas in 30% of these cases a stationary vehicle was crashed into. Most accidents happened during parallel parking on main streets with higher trafc volume [4]. Therefore it is not surprising to see an increased research and development activity in the eld of advanced parking assistants (APA) in recent years. The range of APA systems varies from information systems (e.g. solely distance control or parking space measuring) to full-autonomous parking assistants (automated steering and speed control; for an overview, see [5]). Some of these systems have already been introduced into the market, especially in the area of distance control. Nowadays, ultrasonic systems predominantly inform the driver via acoustic sounds and/or visual displays about the distance to objects or other vehicles that border the parking space. At present, semi-autonomous APA systems for parallel parking are the most advanced type of parking assistants on the market. While steering is controlled by the
IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 141147 doi: 10.1049/iet-its.2010.0112

system, the driver receives step-by-step instruction on how to move the vehicle (accelerating and braking) via displays. Hence, semi-autonomous APA systems give the driver less input than other information systems and the driver usually does not have to pay much visual and cognitive attention to the APA system itself [6]. Until now, the efciency of APA systems has been empirically analysed, for instance, with respect to reduced operational demands for the driver during parallel parking or regarding an improved parking performance [79]. However, learning effects while handling the APA system and possible transfer effects on manual parking have not yet been discussed. Solely [10] points out that learning how to handle an APA system will mainly take place while driving in real trafc: 86% of the participants in his survey admit to be relying largely on personal experiences with the APA system. Only approximately 20% of the interviewees looked for information in the systems manual. According to the so-called power law of practice [11], it is expected that learning effects in handling the APA system particularly take place during the rst manoeuvres while parking: The more often the driver parks with the APA system, the lower possible gains in learning are. Whereas the power law of practice has been demonstrated for learning processes concerning information systems in the vehicle (e.g. [1216]), no comparable studies have been published for advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) yet. According to [17], it can be expected that learning effects depend on the autonomy of the ADAS itself: the more autonomous ADAS are, the smaller the learning effects in handling the system successfully will be. Studies concerning distraction effects with information systems in the vehicle
141

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011

www.ietdl.org
support the assumption that distracting effects owing to handling the ADAS will be particularly distinct during rst contacts with the system [18]. In order to measure learning effects in handling the ADAS, the following criteria are suggested [19]: system-related criteria (robust and efcient handling of the system, usage of the whole functionality, adaptation of the drivers behaviour to the system), driver-related criteria (high acceptance, low workload, high comfort and perceived safety), safety-related criteria (no safety-critical handling of the system (i.e. long display glances), low number of safetyrelevant driving errors while interacting with the system). The present studys aim was to examine these learning effects while using a semi-autonomous APA system. It was assumed that possible learning effects prevail during the initial manoeuvres with the APA system.

Fig. 1 Schematic illustration of the studys design in the test area

160% of the cars length (as the minimal space size, in which the APA system could realise a backward-motion parking position), respectively. The length of the 140%-space was approx. 6.78 m, the one of the 160%-space approx. 7.74 m (the length of the test vehicle was 4.84 m). Parking into the 160%-space was judged as easier by the drivers compared to the 140%-space (How strenuous was parking, m 7.86, sd 1.55 for 140%-space; m 6.74, sd 1.79 for 160%-space on a 16-point scale ranging from 0 not at all to 15 very much, t-test for dependent samples: t (53) 2 7.724, p 0.000). In the following, only the results for selected manoeuvres in the 140%-spaces will be discussed: four manoeuvres without the APA system (two were taken from the training stage, one taken from Block 1 and one from Block 2; see section procedure) and three manoeuvres with the APA system (one was taken from the training stage, one from Block 1 and one from Block 2). These manoeuvres were selected so that at least one manoeuvre stems from each part of the test session. The sequence of parking manoeuvres with or without the APA was varied, and thus the number of the selected manoeuvres in the sequence varied as well. For each manoeuvre the following parameters were calculated: mean mean mean mean number of parking attempts, number of parking motions, duration of parking manoeuvre, maximum velocity.

2
2.1

Method
Semi-autonomous APA system

The APA system used in this study rst assisted the driver in nding a parking space by showing free spaces in a display placed on the upper central console. After the driver stopped the car and changed into reverse, the APA system controlled the steering. The driver manoeuvred the car by using the systems instructions regarding accelerating and braking on the display; the system controlled the steering while parallel parking autonomously. The manoeuvre ended as soon as the pre-calculated parking position was reached. The systems support continued when more forward and backward motions were necessary to reach the precalculated parking position. The driver could monitor the whole procedure on the display in the upper central console. In addition, the car was tted with a distance control system to check the distance to any neighbouring objects using ultrasonic sound (UPA, ultrasonic parking assistant). Approximation to any object was indicated by an increasing signal until a constant alert indicated the minor distance of less than 30 cm to the other object. 2.2 Parking manoeuvres

The subjects were asked to park the car in parking spaces on a test area with and without the described semi-autonomous APA system, respectively. The same parking manoeuvres had to be done in real trafc. In the following, only the results for the test area will be considered. The rst part of the study was done on a test course in an industrial area of Wuerzburg. A prototypical trafc situation was created (see Fig. 1). Several cars formed six parking spaces on both sides of a lane, 5.5 m wide, approachable from both sides. The spaces were 2 m wide. One of the spaces was limited by a displaced car (see Fig. 1 down right). In addition, road marking was added for a better identication of the lane and wooden beams were used as curb stones to mark the parking spaces. In allusion to [7], two different sizes of parking spaces were created in the test area: 140% of the cars length (as the minimal space size, in which the APA system reliably identied a suiting parking space), or
142 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011

In some of the manoeuvres in the test area, staged situations were realised in which obstacles were positioned in the vehicles pathway (e.g. a tethered toy coupe was pulled in the path of the backing car; a post was placed within the parking space by an on-road experimenter). These obstacles symbolised pedestrians or any undetected objects (for further information and results see [9]). At the end of the session, the driver had to park with the parking assistant, but without the visual display. The aim of this part of the session was to determine if the driver was able to rely solely on acoustic signals without the visual display after having more experience with the system. In these manoeuvres, the display was covered with a black piece of paper. So the driver only could hear the sounds of the parking assistant, but was not able to see the messages in the display. In this stage of the test session, up to four manoeuvres were performed in the test area. If the driver was unable to park without the display, only two manoeuvres were carried out. If parking without the display was
IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 141 147 doi: 10.1049/iet-its.2010.0112

www.ietdl.org
successfully completed or learning effects were noticeable, the participant had to park four times. For these manoeuvres only 140%-spaces in the test area were used. 2.3 Glance behaviour analysis stage (e.g. concerning appropriate reaction and safe reaction on the APA system). The ratings were based on a ve-point scale, one being not at all and ve being very much. 2.5 Procedure

The glance behaviour of subjects was measured by means of the head-mounted measurement device Dikablis [20]. In the head unit of this device two cameras were installed, the one directed on the area outside of the vehicle, the other one on the left eye of the subject. By superimposing the pictures of both cameras, the subjects glance behaviour could be specied. The superimposed videos were manually coded. For this purpose, ve areas of interest (AOI) were dened: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. front windshield, mirrors, front side windows, display, rear windows.

The experimental session included the following stages: 1. 2. 3. 4. training stage in a test area (eight manoeuvres), Block 1 and Block 2 in a test area (nine manoeuvres each), public trafc (nine manoeuvres), parking without the display (up to four manoeuvres).

For each AOI the following parameters were calculated and are reported: glance direction (no glance into AOI against minimum one glance into AOI), relative frequency of AOI glances during the whole parking manoeuvre. In the following, only glance behaviour of the driver during the rst backward motion is discussed because the driver leaves the trafc ow and the possibility of colliding with obstacles in the parking space is higher. The rst backward motion starts with a stop after passing a free parking space and ends with a halt at the end of the rst backward motion. 2.4 Inquiry and observation

Immediately after a parking manoeuvre, drivers were asked to rate the perceived workload (How strenuous was parking?) based on a 16-point scale, 0 being not at all and 15 being very much, and the perceived safety (How condent did you feel during parking?) while parking. Additionally, they were asked to judge their own parking performance and (if applicable) discuss any problems that arose regarding the operation of the vehicle or the APA system. In addition, the subjects had to answer a short questionnaire after each stage of the session. The drivers were asked to rate perceived comfort and safety while parking, satisfaction with nal parking position etc. on a ve-point scale, one being not at all and ve being very much; subjects had to answer a total of 30 questions. There was also a detailed survey carried out by the experimenter at the end of the session including questions in an open-question format. In this part of the study, the subjects had to describe and evaluate certain features of the functionality of the APA system as well as to give recommendations on how to improve the APA system. During the whole session an in-vehicle experimenter sat behind the driver in the test vehicle. First, it was his task to note drivers errors while handling the APA system during the parking manoeuvres (i.e. errors while activating the APA system, reasons for non-successful manoeuvres, backing up too fast). Second, the in-vehicle experimenter was asked to conduct the inquiries after each part of the session. Third, he was to evaluate the drivers performance in the preceding
IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 141147 doi: 10.1049/iet-its.2010.0112

The session started in the test area with the installation of the glance behaviour measuring device. The subjects were not given a detailed explanation of the functionality of the APA system. Instead, there was only a short instruction designed to be similar to a car rental situation. Thereafter, the subjects gained experience in handling the car and the APA system by performing four parking manoeuvres without as well as with the APA system (training stage). During these manoeuvres the subjects had to acquaint themselves with the system. After the training stage, detailed system instructions were given to the drivers. In Block 1 and Block 2, the subjects had to perform 18 manoeuvres (nine manoeuvres with and nine manoeuvres without the semi-autonomous APA system) in the test area. After completing nine manoeuvres, each of the subjects took a break and were able to take off the glance behaviour measuring device. In public trafc, subjects had to perform nine parking manoeuvres, nearly half of the manoeuvres with and the rest without the APA system. After returning to the test area, the drivers were asked to perform up to four parking manoeuvres without the display, solely concentrating on the acoustic tones given by the APA system. After each manoeuvre, the subjects were asked for their judgements concerning workload, parking performance and (if applicable) problems with handling the vehicle or the APA system. After each stage of the session, the subjects had to answer a questionnaire and the in-vehicle experimenter gave judgements on the drivers performance in the preceding stage. Additionally, there was a detailed survey done by the experimenter at the end of the session. The study was conducted by an in-vehicle experimenter (who sat behind the driver) and an on-road experimenter (who realised the staged situations, counted drivers errors etc.). Owing to safety concerns, the drivers always did the parking manoeuvres in the test area rst. After Block 2 the in-vehicle experimenter decided if the subject was allowed to do the parking manoeuvres with or without the APA system, respectively, in public trafc. If this decision had been negative, the session would have been nished and the data of the parking manoeuvres in the test area would have been excluded from further analysis. Altogether, each subject performed 35 parking manoeuvres (plus up to four manoeuvres without the display); the number of manoeuvres was much higher than the actual number of manoeuvres done while driving in a realistic environment. The whole session lasted approximately 4 h. 2.6 Sample

Altogether N 18 subjects (9 male and 9 female) between 19 and 72 years of age (m 40.3, sd 21.9) participated in the
143

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011

www.ietdl.org
study. The subjects were members of the test driver panel of the Wuerzburg Institute for Trafc Sciences (WIVW). The groups consisted of drivers, of who one half estimated their capabilities in parallel parking as good and the other half, respectively, as poor. On the other hand one-third of the sample represented a younger age (19 20 years), another third a middle age (25 49 years) and the last third an older age group (65 72 years; for further information and results see [21]). The required information was ascertained by online questionnaires prior to the test. The subjects were granted an expense allowance for their participation. The maximum velocity during the rst parking motion is reduced with growing experience in handling the APA system (one-factor ANOVA for within-factor manoeuvre, F (2, 34) 3.454, p 0.043, h2 0.169; see Fig. 3a). Compared with this, the distribution of velocity largely remains constant. As a result, there is no learning effect on the duration of the whole parking manoeuvre (one-factor ANOVA for within-factor manoeuvre, F (2, 32) 1.168, p 0.324, h2 0.068; see Fig. 3b). At the end of the session, drivers were asked to park up to four times with the parking assistant, but without the visual display. The idea was to determine whether the sounds of the APA system are sufcient enough to enter a parking space without looking at the display. With the APA system, the drivers nish on average 2.60 of 4 manoeuvres (sd 0.41) successfully. The speed of the driver when backing up heavily inuences the successfulness of a parking manoeuvre.

3
3.1

Results
Parking behaviour

With the APA system, nearly all parking attempts are successful and the number of parking motions is smaller than with parking without APA (see Fig. 2). These results reect the functionality of the APA system. Therefore no learning effects for handling the APA system can be seen (number of parking attempts with APA: inferential statistics cannot be applied as no variation is found; number of parking motions with APA: one-factor ANOVA for within-factor manoeuvre, F (2, 32) 0.399, p 0.674, h2 0.024). Compared with this, the drivers gain experience in parallel parking itself while parking without APA: the number of parking attempts as well as the number of parking motions (one-factor ANOVA for within-factor manoeuvre, F (3, 48) 2.460, p 0.074, h2 0.133; F (2, 51) 2.918, p 0.043, h2 0.146, respectively) diminish with growing experience in handling the vehicle during manual parking, particularly in direct comparison of the rst and second manoeuvre during manual parking with the test vehicle.

3.2

Observations of the in-vehicle experimenter

According to the observations of the in-vehicle experimenter after each stage of the experimental session, the drivers react more pertinently and safely to the APA system with growing practice (one-factor ANOVAs for within-factor manoeuvre; appropriate reaction: F (2, 34) 9.677, p 0.000, h2 0.363; safe reaction: F (2, 34) 23.415, p 0.000, h2 0.579; see Fig. 4). These learning gains predominantly appear between the training stage and Block 1. Additionally, the in-vehicle experimenter noted the drivers errors while handling the APA system. In general, drivers make more errors in the initial manoeuvre than in the preceding manoeuvres (manoeuvre 1: 20 errors, manoeuvre 2: 7 errors and manoeuvre 3: 10 errors). Table 1 gives an overview which errors can be found in interaction with the system.

Fig. 2 Parking performance with and without APA system, respectively

a Mean number of parking attempts b Mean number of parking motions pictured are means with standard deviation 144 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011

Fig. 3 Parking performance with APA sytem

a Mean maximum velocity [in km/h] during the rst parking motion b Mean duration of parking manoeuvres [in sec] Pictured are means with standard deviation IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 141 147 doi: 10.1049/iet-its.2010.0112

www.ietdl.org

Fig. 4 Mean judgements of in-vehicle experiments

a Judgements concerning appropriate reaction b Judgements concerning safe reaction Pictured are means with standard deviation

Fig. 5 Drivers answers after each manoeuvre

a Question: How strenuous was parking? b Question: How condent did you feel during parking?

Table 1
system

Number of drivers errors while handling the APA

3.3

Inquiry

Type of error errors while activating the system (e.g. system activation is too late) reasons for non-successful manoeuvres (e.g. stopping too early) backing up too fast sum

Manoeuvre 1 2

Manoeuvre 2 0

Manoeuvre 3 1

11 20

5 7

7 10

Immediately after a parking manoeuvre, drivers were asked to rate perceived workload and safety while parking on a 16-point scale (see Fig. 5). In the course of the session, drivers answers on the question How strenuous was parking (perceived workload, see Fig. 5a) do not change regarding manual parking (one-factor ANOVA for withinfactor manoeuvre, F(3, 51) 1.823, p 0.155, h2 0.097), nor do they change for assisted parking with the APA (onefactor ANOVA for within-factor manoeuvre, F (2, 32) 0.775, p 0.469, h2 0.046). Overall, reported workload of the driver appears to be of medium level. Similarly, drivers judgements concerning How condent did you feel during parking? (perceived safety, see Fig. 5b) do not vary signicantly over time while parking with APA

Fig. 6 Relative frequency of glances [in percentage] into AOI during the rst parking motion of manoeuvres with and without the APA system, respectively
IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 141147 doi: 10.1049/iet-its.2010.0112 145

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011

www.ietdl.org
Learning effects appear in particular in glance behaviour and maximum velocity during the rst parking motion as well as in drivers reaction to the APA system: The more experience the driver has with handling the system, the less visual attention is used to monitor the systems display; the lower the maximum velocity is, the more appropriately drivers react to the APA system. Furthermore, fewer errors while handling the APA system are made by the driver. No systematic learning effects can be found in drivers judgements concerning their perceived workload and perceived safety. These results largely conrm the assumptions made by the power law of practice [11]: if learning effects appear, these are dominant in the rst part of the session. Therefore this law can be applied to learning effects while handling an APA system (as an example of an ADAS). Moreover, these results suggest that learning how to handle a semiautonomous APA system does not go along with very distinct learning effects: owing to the autonomy of the system itself (the APA system utilises automatic steering, but does not control speed by accelerating or braking) there are only a few aspects of this system that really have to be learned by the driver (see also [17]). Particularly distracting effects caused by the systems display have to be considered at the beginning of the learning phase (see also [18]). However, the learning effects in handling the APA system might even inuence the glance behaviour during parallel parking without a parking assistant: the more manoeuvres are done with the APA system, the more often drivers look at least once into the display while parking without the APA system, despite the fact that the display is deactivated. Some drivers seem to have introduced the systems display into their gaze pattern during parallel parking even in manual parking. It is questionable as to whether this carry-over effect will continue after a greater number of manoeuvres without an APA system. Nevertheless, unintended carry-over effects respecting glance behaviour have to be considered in further studies. Finally, a few methodological concerns have to be discussed. First, controlled conditions in the test area are realised in this study to minimise the inuence of confounding variables to a large extent: the parking spaces have standardised sizes and there is no surrounding trafc. Hence, the internal validity of the results in this study should be high. On the other hand, the results of the test area might not guarantee external validity. It is open to question whether the participants behaviour in the test area corresponds to behaviour in public trafc. Second, the drivers have to wear the head unit of the glance behaviour measurement device throughout most parts of the session. Wearing the head unit is a new experience for the driver. Consequently, it cannot be taken for granted that wearing the head unit has no reactivity effects on behaviour, especially on glance behaviour. Furthermore, glance behaviour might have been inuenced because wearing the head unit is annoying for some of the participants. In spite of breaks during the session in which the subjects could take off the head unit, several subjects report in the nal inquiry that the head unit impairs their eld of vision or is uncomfortable. These negative effects of wearing the head unit can also lead to a change of subjects glance behaviour. Third, only seven of the 35 manoeuvres tested is analysed and discussed in this paper. It was necessary to only select a portion of the total manoeuvres done to discuss here because the manual coding of the data gleaned from the glance behaviour measurement device demands both time and
IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 141 147 doi: 10.1049/iet-its.2010.0112

Fig. 7 Relative frequency of drivers who looked into the sytems display at least once [in percentage] during the rst parking motion with and without the APA system, respectively

(one-factor ANOVA for within-factor manoeuvre, F (2, 32) 1.389, p 0.264, h2 0.080): The drivers feel largely condent during parking with the APA. However, learning effects regarding reported safety can be observed during manual parking (one-factor ANOVA for withinfactor manoeuvre, F (3, 51) 3.318, p 0.027, h2 0.163): especially in the rst non-assisted parking manoeuvre drivers feel less safe compared to the following parking manoeuvres. 3.4 Glance behaviour

Learning effects are visible in glance behaviour during the rst parking motion with the APA (see Fig. 6): The more experience the driver has with handling the APA system, the less visual attention is used to monitor the systems display. For other areas-of-interest (e.g. windshield, windows, backwards, mirrors) no systematic learning effects can be proven. For manual parking, no systematic changes over the course of the session can be shown except for looking backwards. Surprisingly, with an increase in practice time, the number of drivers that look into the systems display at least once while parking without the APA increase, even though the display is deactivated (see Fig. 7). During assisted parking, nearly all the subjects look into the display during the rst parking motion at least once. In this case, no learning effect can be shown: using the APA system requires at least one glance into the systems display.

Conclusions

To sum up, the lower numbers of parking attempts and parking motions as well as the positive ratings of the drivers regarding the APA system indicate that the usage of the parking assistant facilitates parking. These results are consistent with published studies that have shown positive effects of APA systems regarding operational demands for the driver as well as an improved parking performance during parallel parking ([7 9]). Nevertheless, the expansion of automation (for instance, the launch of full-autonomous APA systems) should be handled with care: Higher automation levels of APA systems might go along with a decrease in the drivers attention to the environment, as, for instance, the increased probability of dangerous trafc situations [9]. These dangerous situations might occur if the system reaches its limits (e.g. moving obstacles like passersby or objects hard to detect due to size or design like posts or bicycles).
146 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011

www.ietdl.org
resources. For the purposes of this paper, four manoeuvres without the APA (two were taken from the training stage, one taken from Block 1, and one from Block 2) and three manoeuvres with the APA (one was taken from the training stage, one from Block 1, and one from Block 2) are discussed in detail. Automatic coding of these data would however greatly reduce time and resource consumption.
10 Llaneras, R.E.: Exploratory study of early adopters, safety-related driving with advanced technologies. Draft nal task 2 report: In-vehicle systems inventory, recruitment methods & approaches, and owner interview results, National Highway Trafc Safety Administration, 2006) 11 Newell, A., Rosenbloom, A.: Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice in Anderson, J.R. (Ed.): Cognitive skills and their acquisition (Erlbaum, 1981), pp. 1 55 12 Jahn, G., Krems, J.F., Gelau, C.: Skill-development when interacting with in-vehicle information systems: a training study on the learnability of different MMI concepts in de Waard, D., Brookhuis, K.A., Moraal, J., Toffetti, A. (Eds.): Human factors in transportation, communication, health, and the workspace (Shaker Publishing, 2002), pp. 35 48 13 Totzke, I., Kru ger, H.-P., Hofmann, M., Meilinger, T., Rauch, N., Schmidt, G.: Kompetenzerwerb fu r Informationssysteme Einuss des Lernprozesses auf die Interaktion mit Fahrerinformationssystemen [Learnability of information systems Inuence of the learning process on the interaction with in-vehicle information systems] Berthold Druck, 2004, FAT-Schriftenreihe Band 184) 14 Bengler, K., Noszko, T., Neuss, R.: Usability of multimodal humanmachine interaction while driving. Proc. Ninth World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, Chicago, USA, October 2002 15 Dingus, T.A., Hulse, M.C., Mollenhauer, M.A., Fleischman, R.N., McGehee, D.V., Manakkal, N.: Effects of age, system experience, and navigation technique on driving with an advanced traveler information system, Hum. Factors, 1997, 39, pp. 177 199 16 Shinar, D., Tractinsky, N., Compton, R.: Effects of practice, age, and task demands on interference from a phone task while driving, Accid. Anal. Prevent., 2005, 37, pp. 315326 17 Norman, D.A.: The problem with automation (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1990), B, pp. 1 18 18 Young, K.L., Regan, M.A., Lee, J.D.: Factors moderating the impact of distraction on driving performance and safety in Regan, M.A., Lee, J.D., Young, K.L. (Eds.): Driver distraction theory, effects, and mitigation (CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2009), pp. 335 382 19 Buld, S., Hoffmann, S., Kaussner, A., Kru ger, H.-P.: Methode zur ndnisses Feststellung des Lernfortschritts bzw. des Systemversta [Method for measuring learning effects and system comprehension] (Forschungsinitiative INVENT, Aktive Sicherheit FAS. Teilprojekt Fahrverhalten und Mensch-Maschine-Interaktion, FVM. AP 2200, Interdisziplina res Zentrum fu r Verkehrswissenschaften an der Universita t Wuerzburg, 2004) 20 Lange, C., Wohlfarter, M., Bubb, H.: Automated analysis of eyetracking data for the evaluation of driver information systems according to ISO/TS 15007 2:2001, Proc. 13th Int. Conf. HumanComputer Interaction, San Diego, 2009 21 Totzke, I., Mu ltere hlbacher, D., Fath, M., Kru ger, H.-P.: Junge vs. a Fahrer: Sind Parkassistenzsysteme notwendig und sinnvoll? [Young vs. elderly drivers: Are parking assistants necessary and useful?], in Lichtenstein, A., Sto el, C., Clemens, C. (Eds.): Der Mensch im Mittelpunkt technischer Systeme (VDI-Verlag, 2009 FortschrittBerichte VDI Reihe 22, Nr. 29), pp. 345 349

References

1 Hering, K.: Situationsabha ngiges Verfahren zur standardisierten Messung der kognitiven Beanspruchung im Straenverkehr Literaturu bersicht und empirische Felduntersuchung [Situationdependant method for a standardized measurement of cognitive load while driving review and empirical test in the eld]. PhD thesis, Universita t zu Ko ln, 1999 2 Lee, W., Uhler, W., Bertram, T.: Integrative Produktentwicklung eines neuen Parkassistenzsystems [integrative product development of a new parking assistant], HNI-Verlagsschriftenreihe, 2004, 145, pp. 17 32 3 Airaksinen, T., Aminoff, H., Bystro m, E., Eimar, G., Mata, I., Schmidt, D.: Automatic parallel parking assistance system user interface design easier said than done?, Available at http://www.ida.liu.se/ ~729G19/projektrapporter/rapporter-04/grupp4.pdf, 2004, accessed October 2009 4 Green, P.: Parking crashes and parking assistance system design: evidence from crash databases, the literature, and insurance agent interviews [Parking assistants: Technologies from today and tomorrow], (SAE paper 200606AE-269, 2006) 5 Lambert, G., Kirchner, A., Hu ger, P.: Parkassistenzsysteme. Technologien von heute und morgen [Parking assistants: Technologies from today and tomorrow], in VDI-Gesellschaft Fahrzeug- und Verkehrstechnik (Eds.): Integrierte Sicherheit und Fahrerassistenzsysteme, VDI-Verlag, 2008, VDI-Berichte Nr. 2048) 6 Keler, M., Mangin, B.: Nutzerorientierte Auslegung von teilautomatisierten Einparkassistenzsystemen [User-oriented design of semi-autonomous parking assistants], in Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (Ed.): Der Fahrer im 21. Jahrhundert human machine interface, VDI-Verlag, 2007, VDI-Berichte 2015), pp. 179190 7 Doisl, C.: Systemergonomische Analyse von Anzeige- und Bedienkonzepten zur Unterstu tzung des Parkvorgangs [System ergonomic analysis of display and handling concepts for assisting parking]. PhD thesis, TU Mu nchen, 2007 8 Lee, W.C.: Beitra ge zur Entwicklung eines Fahrerassistenz-Systems fu r Einpark-vorga nge [Contributions for the development of a parking assistant]. PhD thesis, TU Illmenau, 2006 9 Totzke, I., Mu hlbacher, D., Kru ger, H.-P.: Semi-autonomous advanced parking assist a source of drivers distraction?, in de Waard, D., Axelsson, A., Berglund, M., Peters, B., Weikert, C. (Eds.): Human factors: a system view of human, technology and organisation (Shaker Publishing, 2010), pp. 1 10

IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, pp. 141147 doi: 10.1049/iet-its.2010.0112

147

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011