Post on 13-Apr-2017
Institute for Transport StudiesFaculty of Environment
What do psychology and neuroscience have to do with vehicle engineering? – The driver model case for cross-disciplinarity
Dr. Gustav MarkkulaHuman Factors & Safety GroupITS Research Seminar2016-11-17
Vehicle engineering?
The driver
Driver models
”The virtual crash test dummy with a brain”
Conflicting descriptions?
Routine driving Near-crash driving
Closed-loop Open-loop
Short delays Long, random delays
Well-adjusted control Under- and overreactions
(Van Auken et al., 2011)
(MacAdam et al., 2003)
Stealing ideas
Motor primitives
(Flash and Henis, 1991)
(Cook and Maunsell, 2002)Evidence accumulation
Perceptual heuristics
(Land and Horwood, 1995; Wann and Wilkie, 2004; Salvucci and Gray, 2004)
Routine driving Near-crash driving
Closed-loop Open-loop
Short delays Long, random delays
Well-adjusted control Under- and overreactions
Conflicting descriptions?
Intermittent open-
loop adjustments...
... timing from
evidence accumulation
... amplitudes from
perceptual heuristics,
near-optimal for routine
circumstances
(Mar
kkul
a, 2
014)
Steering during skidding
�̇� ( 𝑡+𝑇 R )=𝑘f �̇� f (𝑡 )≈−𝑘𝑓 �̇�(𝑡 )
(Markkula, 2013; Markkula, Benderius, Wahde, & Wolff, 2014)
Understanding near-crash brake response
(Markkula, 2014)
-1 -0.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 Truck crash
R2 = -0.08
0 50
0.5
1
-1 -0.5 0 0.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 Bus near-crash
R2 = 0.98
0 50
0.5
1
-3 -2 -1 0
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 SHRP 2near-crash
R2 = 0.18
0 50
0.5
1
-6 -4 -2
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 SHRP 2crash
R2 = 0.60
0 50
0.5
1
-1 -0.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 ANNEXTcrash
R2 = 1.00
0 50
0.5
1
-3 -2 -1 0
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 SHRP 2near-crash
R2 = 0.75
0 50
0.5
1
-2 -1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 SHRP 2crash
R2 = 0.98
0 50
0.5
1
-4 -2 0
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 SHRP 2near-crash
R2 = 0.87
0 50
0.5
1
-4 -2
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 SHRP 2crash
R2 = 0.97
0 50
0.5
1
-4 -2
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 Truck crash
R2 = 0.92
0 50
0.5
1
-6 -4 -2
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 Truck crash
R2 = 0.91
0 50
0.5
1
-1 -0.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 Truck crash
R2 = -0.08
0 50
0.5
1
-1 -0.5 0 0.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 Bus near-crash
R2 = 0.98
0 50
0.5
1
-3 -2 -1 0
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 SHRP 2near-crash
R2 = 0.18
0 50
0.5
1
-6 -4 -2
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 SHRP 2crash
R2 = 0.60
0 50
0.5
1
-1 -0.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 ANNEXTcrash
R2 = 1.00
0 50
0.5
1
-3 -2 -1 0
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 SHRP 2near-crash
R2 = 0.75
0 50
0.5
1
-2 -1
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 SHRP 2crash
R2 = 0.98
0 50
0.5
1
-4 -2 0
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 SHRP 2near-crash
R2 = 0.87
0 50
0.5
1
-4 -2
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 SHRP 2crash
R2 = 0.97
0 50
0.5
1
-4 -2
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 Truck crash
R2 = 0.92
0 50
0.5
1
-6 -4 -2
-1
-0.5
0
0.5 Truck crash
R2 = 0.91
0 50
0.5
1
Predictions for (near-/)crashes:• Piecewise near-linear deceleration• Above threshold, brake response
time decreases with urgency• Deceleration ramp-up slow, but
increasing with urgency
(Markkula, Engström, Lodin, Bärgman & Victor, 2016)
Time (s)A
ccel
erat
ion
(g)
Time (s)
Explaining variability in near-crash response time
(poster by Markkula, Lodin, Wells, Theander & Sandin, 2016)
(a number of slides with unpublished work removed for web sharing)
Related application: Transitions from automated to manual driving
(Merat, Jamson, Lai, Daly & Carsten, 2014)
(Zeeb, Buchner & Schrauf, 2015)
(a number of slides with unpublished work removed for web sharing)
Summary / reflections
• Reaching from an applied question to ideas and concepts from more basic sciences
• Key here: Constrained applied problem provided focus
• Resulting cross-disciplinary connection proved a rich source of new ideas and applications
• Mechanisms grounded in more basic sciences applied models more likely to generalise
Pros and cons of cross-disciplinarity
• Potential for low-hanging fruit• Personal development, fun
• More difficult to communicate findings?
Institute for Transport StudiesFaculty of Environment
Thanks!