Sep 2026· Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting· 0 citations· 7 references
TL;DR
The findings indicate that acceptance of in-vehicle AI depends on clear communication, appropriate control boundaries, safety-relevant intervention, and responsible data use.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into vehicles, but drivers’ acceptance may depend on how these systems communicate, share control, intervene for safety, and handle data. This study used two focus groups with 13 licensed young adult drivers to examine their current use of in-vehicle technologies and reactions to three scenario-based AI roles: Advisor, Co-Pilot, and Guardian. Four themes emerged: system explainability, maintained control, acceptance based on safety, and data transparency. Participants were generally receptive to AI that supported awareness and safety while preserving driver authority. Advisor AI was valued when it provided timely and specific information, Co-Pilot AI was more acceptable when assistance was predictable and easy to override, and Guardian AI was accepted primarily for brief intervention in high-risk situations. Participants also expected adjustable communication settings and transparent data practices. The findings indicate that acceptance of in-vehicle AI depends on clear communication, appropriate control boundaries, safety-relevant intervention, and responsible data use.
Research has proposed a variety of cooperative systems that allow drivers to participate in the driving task. While previous work shows that such interfaces can improve user experience, trust, and acceptance, reasons for their effectiveness remain unclear. This paper investigates the effect of different components of a...
Dinara Talypova, Ambika Shahu, Philipp Wintersberger· Proceedings of the 18th Inte...· 0 citations
This work contributes a patent–hazard coverage perspective for identifying areas of innovation concentration and underexplored opportunity, together with a two‐dimensional design space linking hazard domains to behavioral adaptivity, and introduces an inclusivity matrix that translates demographic variability into meas...
Jana Skirnewskaja, Mardavij Roozbehani, M. Dahleh· Advanced Intelligent Systems· 0 citations
Human driver errors remain a central road-safety concern, but existing error and violation taxonomies were developed mainly for conventional traffic. In mixed traffic, human drivers must also interpret and respond to autonomous vehicles (AVs), whose behavior, intent, recognizability, and social role may differ from tho...
Olga Mironenko, Hadi Banaee, A. Loutfi· European Transport Research...· 0 citations
Current AI-based conversational agents (CAs) largely lack situational awareness, limiting their ability to understand driving context, driver state, and immediate driver needs. Consequently, the use of CA may increase drivers’ cognitive load and impair safety and user experience. This study investigates the role of sit...
Johanna Vännström, Andreas Absér, Jacob Weilandt et al.· Adjunct Proceedings of the 1...· 0 citations
Driver monitoring systems are typically designed to detect driver states and as appropriate, issue corrective warning and/or take action (alert, takeover, etc.). Current warning strategies are designed by a rule-based deterministic model, given ease in certification and predictability, with little or no personalization...
L. Boyle, Alexandria M. Noble, Natasha Merat et al.· Adjunct Proceedings of the 1...· 0 citations
Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) and AI- supported decision assistants are expected to transform maritime operations, but their safe integration depends on how maritime professionals perceive and trust such systems. This paper presents a survey study on maritime stakeholders'attitudes toward an AI-supported ass...
Doreen Jirak, Armeen Saroukanoff, D. Van Rooy· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
