Study on Camera Monitor Systems

Transcription

1 Study on Camera Monitor Systems Eike A. Schmidt, Rainer Krautscheid Informal Group on Camera Monitor Systems in Reg. No. 46 Berlin, Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen

2 Background Camera Monitor Systems may replace classical outside rearview mirrors......allowing new design concepts / reduction of vehicle width...allowing a reduction of aerodynamic drag Evaluation of technical aspects as well as aspects concerning human machine interaction(hmi) in comparison to a conventional outside rearview mirror necessary

3 Technical Aspects Field of vision General day and night characteristics Image properties Glare Adjustability of camera and display Reliability Weather Robustness Exchangeability Energy Consumption

4 Field of vision(xl1) The required field of vision ismet Blind spot is reduced

5 Tunnel Vehicle dissapears for t 1s

6 Direct sunlight No meaningful image on monitor for t 2s

7 Direct sunlight No discomfort glare

8 Rain No disturbing rain drops

9 Night Smear/ blooming No discomfort glare Point light sources are displayed as points light sources Schmidt Folie Nr. -IG 9 CMS

10 Reflections on display surface Reflection of display should be reduced Schmidt Folie Nr. -10 IG CMS

11 Dirt Folie Nr Schmidt - IG CMS

12 Dirt Both solutions show advantages and disadvantages. Some disadvantages of the CMS could be addressed by the specification of technical requirements. Folie Nr. 12 CMS provides better image than rear view mirror Schmidt - IG CMS

13 Aspects of Human Machine Interaction Field of vision tailored to traffic situation Individualization possible Option to highlight objects or persons Reduction of discomfort glare

14 Aspects of Human Machine Interaction Effect of varying display position on drivers situation awareness (Endsley, 1995) not known: Information closer to the central field of view Change of highly automated use patterns may have impact on assessment of relevant information Depth information is reduced Accommodation to closer distance necessary No possibility to adapt field of view by head movements

15 Study Design 2 Experimental Groups Experienced PriorExperience w/cms (Free Use) Age GroupI: years(n=11) Test Round Non-Experienced NO Prior Experience Age Group I: years(n=16) Age Group II: 65 years(n=15) (1) Distance-/Velocity Estimation (2) Parking (3) Highway Driving Subjective: Acceptance; Situational Awareness; Distraction Objective: Performance Measures; Gaze Behavior; Speed Behavior

16 Display Positions

17 Evaluation by experts after free use

18 Evaluation by experts after free use Non-critical or rather unspecific statements: Drivingon rural road Highway driving Turning Reversing Signal lights Start/stop of engine Leaving/ entering vehicle Rain

19 Evaluation by experts after free use Rather critical categories: Parking(distance estimation, orienting) Lane change on highway(estimation of distance and velocity) The experts ratings generally reflect the Driving in tunnels(adaptation technical properties of brightness) of the system Direct sunlight Question: Is there an objective effect on distance Position of monitor and velocity estimation?

20 Distance- and Velocity Estimation( Last Safe Gap-Method ) v=20, 35, 50 km/h light barrier REF 50 m acceleration / 100 m constant velocity light barrier EGO v = 0km/h response button Drivers (EGO) observeapproachingvehicle(ref) throughoutside rearview mirror(rvm) or camera monitor system(cms) Button press atthelatestmomentwhereitisconsideredsafeto pull out in front of the approaching vehicle

21 Results: Last Safe Gap-Method (N=34, within subject) Distance of REF (m) ,2 59,9 68,3 52,9 64,5 68, Velocity of REF (km/h) RVM AS KMS CMS The fastertheref-vehicle, thelarger the last safegap (F (2;66)= , p =.000) Tendencyoflarger gapusingcms (F (1;33) = 3.646, n.s. [p =.065] ) Nointeractionbetweenvelocityanduseddevice (F (2; 66) = 1.187, n.s. [p =.310])

22 Distance Estimation( Magnitude Estimation Method ) REF v= 0 km/h Test: 5 m, 12.5 m, 20 m Reference : 10 m EGO Anchor v=0 km/h Drivers (EGO) observevehiclepositionedin theback (REF) throughrvm orcms Estimationofdistancetorelative tofrontal anchor distance( 100 )

23 Results: Magnitude Estimation (N=40, between-subject) Estimated Distance (m) In general distances and velocities 23,5 can 18,7 be estimated by using the camera monitor system 4,5 3,0 12,3 8,9 5m 12,5m 20m Distance RVM AS KMS CMS There is no significant difference in comparison to using an outside rearview-mirror The furtherthevehiclethelarger theestimateddistance (F(2;14) = 182.3, p =.000) Shorter distancesareestimatedusingcms (F(1; 39) = 5.203, p=.028) Nointeractionbetweendistanceanduseddevice (F(2,78) = 1.65, n.s., p =.207)

24 Reversing / Parking Parallelparken und parallele Annäherung an Hindernis (Randstein) Position I Position II Position III Position Außenspiegel EGO Querparken und orthogonale Annäherung an Hindernis EGO

25 Parking Therewas nosignificantinfluenceoftheusedsystemon thenumberof reversals and the subjective judgement neither for parallel nor for orthogonal parking Thereisa tendencythatespeciallyelderlydriverstendtoneedmore reversalswhenusingdisplayposition1 (lowestposition). Thisisalso reflected in the general judgement

26 Highway driving Auffahren auf die Autobahn REF v=80 km/h Auswertung: -15s Position I Position II Position III Position Außenspiegel EGO v=100 km/h Ausscheren zum Überholen -10s Einscheren nach Überholvorgang -10s REF v=110 km/h EGO v=130 km/h EGO v=120 km/h REF v=120 km/h

27 Highway trackrefrath Overath (filtering situations) Wende Refrath Parkplatz Lustheide Auffahrt Bensberg Parkplatz Röttgesberg Auffahrt Refrath Parkplatz Lustheide Parkplatz Röttgesberg Wende Overath

28 Questionnaire Acceptance Does system acceptance change with continuous use? Prior to use(hear&say) After first use End ofstudy a. The system is helpful. b. I wouldliketoownthesystemin myowncar. c. I have a positive attitude towards the replacement of outside rear view mirrors by CMS

29 Acceptance do not agree 5-4 partly agree 3 2 agree 1 + Hear&Say First Use Post Use Experten Jung Alt The system shows a moderate acceptance which does not change significantly with increasing experience. (HE Erfahrung, F(2,38) =.330, p =.721) No difference between the three groups( experts, young, elderly)

30 Questionnaire Situation awareness Is it possible to form an adequate situation awareness by using the CMS? Position I Position II Position III Position ORVM Parking Highway Driving a. The systems supports me ideally for the estimation of distances to obstacles in the surrounding of my vehice. b. The monitorshowsall relevant informationthati needin order to perform the driving task adequately. c. The system supports me ideally during maneuvering

31 Situation awareness - + Mean of SA-scale AS KMS1 KMS2 KMS3 System NA elderly drivers NJ younger drivers The CMS isperceivedtoperformsomewhatworsethattheoutside rearview mirror(as) [HE System (F (3;81) = 12,516, p =.000)], especially for position 1 No age-effect

32 Comments on display position KMS1 KMS2 KMS3 Verdeckung Occlusion Kopf-/Blickbewegungen Head/Eye Movements Akzeptanz / Nicht Durchführbar Reflektionen im Display Reflections on Display Gewöhnungsbedürftig Ablenkung/Sicherheit Bildqualität

33 Preferred display position Pos. 3/2 Pos Pos Pos

34 Next steps Finalisation of analysis Study on influence of visual abilities on useofcms (e.g. hyperopia) Study on theuseof CMS in heavy goods vehicles(technical and HMI) Support ofdiscussionin IG CMS Final report expected in summer 2014 (will betranslatedintoenglish language)

35 T h a n k y o u f o r y o u r a t te n t i o n!