Is Users’ Trust during Automated Driving Different When Using an Ambient Light HMI, Compared to an Auditory HMI?

The aim of this study was to compare the success of two different Human Machine Interfaces (HMIs) in attracting drivers’ attention when they were engaged in a Non-Driving-Related Task (NDRT) during SAE Level 3 driving. We also assessed the value of each on drivers’ perceived safety and trust. A driving simulator experiment was used to investigate drivers’ response to a non-safety-critical transition of control and five cut-in events (one hard; deceleration of 2.4 m/s2, and 4 subtle; deceleration of ~1.16 m/s2) over the course of the automated drive. The experiment used two types of HMI to trigger a takeover request (TOR): one Light-band display that flashed whenever the drivers needed to takeover control; and one auditory warning. Results showed that drivers’ levels of trust in automation were similar for both HMI conditions, in all scenarios, except during a hard cut-in event. Regarding the HMI’s capabilities to support a takeover process, the study found no differences in drivers’ takeover performance or overall gaze distribution. However, with the Light-band HMI, drivers were more likely to focus their attention to the road centre first after a takeover request. Although a high proportion of glances towards the dashboard of the vehicle was seen for both HMIs during the takeover process, the value of these ambient lighting signals for conveying automation status and takeover messages may be useful to help drivers direct their visual attention to the most suitable area after a takeover, such as the forward roadway.