This paper derives an effective take-over alarm method for a Society of Automotive Engineers Level 3 automated vehicle using vehicle parameters. An experiment was conducted using a driving simulator. Forty-one subjects participated in two different scenarios: unplanned and planned operational design domain. Subjects drove on a highway at 100 km/h in automated mode. Experiment participants resumed manual control of the vehicle when the alarm was provided in the take-over state. A visual and auditory combined alarm was the most effective in terms of drivers’ cognitive load showing low steering angle deviation and steering reversal rate values compared to the combined visual, auditory, and haptic alarm (p = 0.01 and 0.003). The auditory alarm was the most effective in terms of the quality of the driver’s reaction showing a low maximum acceleration value compared to the combined visual, haptic alarm (p = 0.002). The combined visual, auditory, and haptic alarm was the most effective in terms of post-take-over lateral control showing a low standard deviation lateral position value compared to the haptic alarm (p < 0.001). The auditory and haptic combined alarm was the most effective in terms of post-take-over longitudinal control showing a low number of gas pedal inputs value compared to the haptic alarm (p = 0.002).

中文翻译：

---

了解模拟自动车辆中车辆控制接管请求的指标

本文利用车辆参数为汽车工程师协会3级自动驾驶汽车推导了一种有效的接管警报方法。使用驾驶模拟器进行了实验。共有41个主题参与了两种不同的场景：计划外和计划内的运营设计领域。对象以自动模式在100 km / h的高速公路上行驶。当警报处于接管状态时，实验参与者恢复了对车辆的手动控制。就驾驶员的认知负荷而言，与视觉，听觉和触觉的联合警报相比，视觉和听觉的组合警报最有效，显示出较低的转向角偏差和转向反转率值（p = 0.01和0.003）。就驾驶员的反应质量而言，与组合的视觉，触觉报警相比，听觉报警是最有效的，其最大加速度值较低（p = 0.002）。就接管后侧向控制而言，视觉，听觉和触觉警报的组合显示出比触觉警报低的标准偏差横向位置值（p <0.001），是最有效的。就接管后纵向控制而言，与触觉警报相比，听觉和触觉组合警报显示的油门踏板输入值数量少（p = 0.002），是最有效的。就接管后横向控制而言，触觉报警是最有效的，与触觉报警相比，其标准偏差横向位置值较低（p <0.001）。就接管后纵向控制而言，与触觉警报相比，听觉和触觉组合警报显示的油门踏板输入值数量少（p = 0.002），是最有效的。就接管后横向控制而言，触觉报警是最有效的，与触觉报警相比，其标准偏差横向位置值较低（p <0.001）。就接管后纵向控制而言，与触觉警报相比，听觉和触觉组合警报显示的油门踏板输入值数量少（p = 0.002），是最有效的。