On December 10-11, 1997, an IVI Human Factors Technology Workshop was held in Troy, Michigan. The following objective statement was prepared to provide focused direction in organizing the meeting:

"The objective of the IVI Human Factors Technology Workshop is to provide invited transportation professionals the early opportunity to provide inputs to the development and establishment of human factors requirements for the Generation I intelligent vehicles. The workshop will be used to solicit input from stakeholders and build consensus. Vehicle classes to be addressed will include preliminarily cars and, to the lesser extent, buses, trucks, and emergency/special vehicles. Information to be discussed by the group will include:

• Candidate in-vehicle technologies for inclusion and integration for a Generation I IVI vehicle.
• The status of development and availability of each technology.
• Functional descriptions and architecture requirements for the Generation I IVI vehicle.
• Roadway infrastructure requirements to deploy the technology.
• The human factors issues that need to be addressed for each identified technology.
• Completed or ongoing research that has addressed identified human factors issues.
• New human factors research that needs to be completed prior to introduction of the technology into an IVI vehicle.

The information will be used to determine needed human factors research needs for candidate technologies and systems. The information obtained from the workshop will also be used to document a set of requirements for supporting infrastructure, vehicle, and human factors research."

To accomplish the objectives defined for the workshop, the attendance was restricted to invitation only. Careful selection was done to include qualified stakeholders from the public and private sector as well as academia that would be impacted by an IVI program. Emphasis was also placed on selecting people who had a human factors perspective. The participation in the workshop was excellent, with more than 70 people attending.

The workshop began with several presentations to introduce participants to the subject topic and to raise some of the issues to be addressed during the 2-day session. The presentations, in order, were as follows:

• Dr. Samuel Tignor (FHWA) and Dr. Duane Perrin (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA]) opened the workshop with presentations on the direction of the IVI program and how the Driver-Vehicle Interface (DVI) program related to the objectives of IVI.
• Dr. Jeffrey Everson of Battelle provided an overview of international work that had been done to-date that was related to the U.S. IVI program. Dr. Everson’s presentation included several examples of integrated, multi-functional vehicle prototypes incorporating active safety, navigation, and convenience systems that were contiguous with the 26 User Services identified in the U.S. DOT-published Request for Information (RFI).
• Dr. Ian Noy of Transport Canada provided a presentation that stressed the importance of incorporating IVI considerations into an ITS development program such as the IVI to achieve "usable, suitable, and acceptable" systems. He discussed how human factors principles and research-based design can greatly enhance system safety by reducing human error. He emphasized the need to design and develop any IVI prototype from a system perspective as opposed to individual technologies.
• Dr. John Campbell of Battelle presented the results of a survey that was sent to selected participants prior to the workshop. The survey was intended to provide a baseline for breakout group discussions by identifying the availability of the 26 User Services listed in the U.S. DOT RFI for a Generation I IVI, associated infrastructure requirements, and human factors research needs. Key survey findings presented included:

1. Belief that most systems/User Services will be available for operational test rather than as commercial products (at least within the near term).
2. Emphasis on navigation and collision avoidance services rather than convenience-based information systems.
3. Evolution of infrastructure elements. Some concerns exist for completely autonomous systems (e.g., lengthy deployment lead times and system robustness).
4. Emphasis on simpler and more narrow near-term solutions.
5. A wide range of platform-independent human factors research needs.

• The final presentation was given by Greg Barbato of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. This presentation discussed some of the human factors-related lessons learned from a different, but similar, system development program (i.e., pilot crew system design program for a new aircraft cockpit). Barbato made the following three recommendations to the workshop participants:

1. Identify the system requirements early in the development process.
2. Understand the user population and how they think.
3. Design/evaluate systems using a structured objective process such as a methodology used by the U.S. Air Force to design aircraft cockpits. He stated that the methodology could be adapted for automotive applications such as an IVI.

Following the introductory presentations, the participants were divided into six breakout groups. Each breakout group had a focus, but some groups focused on the same topics. Specifically, two groups addressed Collision Avoidance and two groups addressed Navigation Systems. Also, two groups addressed Information Systems, but one group focused on convenience-type systems, while the other focused on safety-type systems. Each group was asked to emphasize the work needed for light vehicles, but also to consider issues for heavy vehicles (i.e., commercial trucks), transit vehicles (i.e., buses), and specialty vehicles (i.e., ambulances). The groups were also requested to prioritize the Generation I vehicle, which was defined as a vehicle available in the next 4 to 5 years that could be controlled by the driver. The final instructions given to each breakout group were to develop human factors research statements that, in their combined opinion, were needed to deploy the functional areas being emphasized by their breakout group. Each group was asked to specify the following information for each research statement identified:

1. Why the research needs to be performed.
2. Key objectives of the research.
3. General technical approach.
4. Estimated period of performance.
5. Estimated costs.

Each breakout group held two sessions during the workshop. The first session focused on defining the candidate functions to be included in an IVI and associated issues of each as an independent subsystem. The second session focused on the integration concerns that needed to be addressed when the candidate subsystems were combined in an IVI.

A total of 48 research statements were developed during the 2-day workshop. Each contained a title, a reason why the research should be performed, key research objectives, a general technical approach, an estimated period of performance, and an estimated cost. Forty-three of these 48 research statements were described to the assembled workshop participants and rated with respect to perceived priority.

The research statements covered a broad range of human factors issues relevant to a near-term IVI. A preliminary review of the research statements and priority ratings provided by the workshop participants was conducted. Our review suggests that the majority of the research statements can be placed into one of four broad categories of human factors research needs. These four categories, along with the titles of the research statements from the workshop, are summarized below. More detailed descriptions of the research statements can be found in the proceedings developed for the workshop by ITS America (ITS America, 1997).

Identify the IVI’s Implications for the Driver-Vehicle Interface (DVI). Many research statements focused on the need to examine critical interactions between the driver and the vehicle. For the most part, these research statements represented an expansion of traditional DVI issues to the new IVI.

Specific titles of research topics in this area were:

• Investigate Haptic and Kinesthetic Warnings.
• Driver Tolerance to System False/Nuisance Alarms.
• Evaluation of Voice Recognition for IVI.
• Define the Nature of the Human System Dialogue.
• Define the Nature of the Adaptive Interface.
• Information Display Assignment and Modality Assignment.
• Requirements for Display Devices.
• Basic Input Modality Research.
• Methods for Comparing Workload in Different Conditions.
• When Should the Navigation/Route Guidance Information System Be Interrupted, Turned Off, Superceded?
• Voice Systems in the Vehicle for IVI.
• Screen Size/Resolution.
• Driver Condition Warning.

Characterize Baseline Driver Behavior and Develop Driver Models for IVI. A number of research statements identified the need to characterize baseline driving behavior across a range of driving situations and conditions. Another theme was the need to develop computational theories and models of driver behavior, and to use these tools to support IVI development. These are related and synergistic research needs, with the data obtained during studies of baseline driver behavior being used as input to the process of developing robust and useful driver models.

Specific titles of research topics in this area were:

• Baseline Driver Behavior and Performance for Each Crash Type.
• Relating Man-Machine Interface (MMI) Elements Quantitatively to Visual Demand Measures.
• Acquisition of Driver Behavior/Driving Environment Data.
• Integration and Development of Human Factors Driver Models for IVI.
• The Driver as a Decisionmaker: Decisions and Decision Processes.
• Describing Normative Driver Behavior Using Quantitative Models.
• Driver Baseline for IVI.

Provide Industry With Human Factors Design Guidelines and Standards for IVI. The need to develop human factors guidelines and standards was identified as a high-priority research need by most of the breakout groups.

Specific titles of research topics in this area were:

• CAS Warning/Alert Standardization.
• Standardization of CAS Warning Criteria.
• Guidelines of CAS Warning Type, Location, and Priority.
• Prioritization of In-Vehicle Information Systems (IVIS) Message Delivery.
• Standardization of Navigation Messages for IVI.
• IVI Messages: How Much and How Often.
• IVI Information Display Prioritization.

Determine the Feasibility and Optimum Design Approach for the Integration of IVIS Devices. A subset of research statements focused on the integration of multiple in-vehicle devices. Specifically, what are the human performance implications of having multiple (vs. single) sources of information for navigation and/or collision avoidance?

Specific titles of research topics in this area were:

• Estimate Benefits of Stand-Alone and Integrated CAS.
• IVI Integration and Multi-Task Performance: Effects on Driving Performance and Behavior.
• Integration – IVI, Current Dash, and Roadside-Based Information.
• IVI Field Infrastructure Requirements.
• Integration of Navigation With Collision Warning, Collision Avoidance.
• Comparative Feasibility of Unitary vs. Multiple Collision Warning Systems, All Systems.

Additional Research Topics. There were many additional research topics identified by the workshop participants. These included:

• Driver Mental Model.
• Field Test of Stand-Alone CAS Scheduled for Generation I Vehicles.
• Contextual Assessment for System Optimization.
• Establish Caution Levels for Infrastructure Road Traffic Database Static/Dynamic.
• Loss of Skill and Negative Transfer.
• IVI Market Research Evaluation.
• Multi-Task Requirements of Driving: Attention, Perception, and Cognition.
• Driving Condition/State Functional Constraints.
• Defining Situational Awareness.
• Driver Understanding of System Functioning.
• Comparison of the Effectiveness of In-Vehicle Warnings to Extra-Vehicle Warnings.
• Alternative Steering Control Devices as an Enabler of Information System Packaging Space.
• How to Ensure Effective Driver Knowledge and Skill (Performance) Levels for Safe Operation and Use of Advanced, Information-Driven Vehicle Technologies.
• Development of Experimental Methodologies for Assessing Risk Compensation Behaviors.
• Build Prototype IVI Vehicles for Human Factors Research.

Dr. Sam Tignor and Dr. Duane Perrin provided the following general observations and conclusions for the IVI Human Factors Workshop.

• Don’t lose sight of the big picture.
• Beware of technologies looking for an application.
• Consider system feasibility vs. commercial viability. Systems must be acceptable to customers in all respects, including cost.
• Place commercial vehicle applications ahead of those for passenger cars.
• Develop an organized methodology for prioritization of projects. The scope of the program is potentially huge, encompassing an almost infinite number of possibilities (4 vehicle types, 26 User Services, 3 generations, various types of drivers, etc.). One potential criterion for prioritizing is benefits.

• Consider both benefits and risks (both direct and indirect).
• Consider more traditional alternatives. Hi-tech solutions may not be necessary or cost-effective.
• Remember older vehicles.
• Present situation is not the baseline; systems will need to interact in future environments (5 to 6 years) with more advanced cars and heavier traffic.
• Benefits depend on driver acceptance. Acceptance depends on the driver’s perception of benefits (perception does not necessarily equal reality).
• Evaluation must consider behavioral adaptation effects.
• Optimizing safety or efficiency at the individual vehicle level may not necessarily translate into greater safety and efficiency at the global level (risk migration).

• Incorporate theoretical structures into system development and evaluation (need a method of ranking system "goodness").
• Good understanding of baseline (normative driving behavior). Need to understand how drivers operate under different situations and conditions.
• Measure overall net effect (long term, involving behavior adaptation).
• Determine the feasibility of driver training.

• Understand normal driver behavior (with and without systems).
• Model driver mental decisions.
• Apply scientific process to IVI design.
• Don’t use the "black box" approach. Consider how the system relates to other components (including the driver).
• Understand integration issues. Electronic components (computers, stereos, televisions, etc.) work together only because thought was devoted to the issue upfront.
• Consider the numerous research issues addressed by breakouts, including:

- Display location and types.
- Icon usage.
- System integration.
- Standards for system compatibility.
- Sensor fusion.
- Information prioritization.
- Estimates of benefits.
- False alarms.
- Training.