Should Teleoperation Be like Driving in a Car? Comparison of Teleoperation HMIs

TL;DR

This study compares different teleoperation interfaces for remote vehicle control, revealing that separating path and velocity inputs improves usability but affects speed, informing design choices for teleoperation systems.

Contribution

It introduces and evaluates a simplified teleoperation interface that separates path and velocity inputs, comparing it with traditional steering wheel controls.

Findings

Separate input methods are preferred for usability.

Steering wheel control is faster than mouse or touchscreen.

Significant differences exist between input device performances.

Abstract

Since Automated Driving Systems are not expected to operate flawlessly, Automated Vehicles will require human assistance in certain situations. For this reason, teleoperation offers the opportunity for a human to be remotely connected to the vehicle and assist it. The Remote Operator can provide extensive support by directly controlling the vehicle, eliminating the need for Automated Driving functions. However, due to the physical disconnection to the vehicle, monitoring and controlling is challenging compared to driving in the vehicle. Therefore, this work follows the approach of simplifying the task for the Remote Operator by separating the path and velocity input. In a study using a miniature vehicle, different operator-vehicle interactions and input devices were compared based on collisions, task completion time, usability and workload. The evaluation revealed significant differences between the three implemented prototypes using a steering wheel, mouse and keyboard or a touchscreen. The separate input of path and velocity via mouse and keyboard or touchscreen is preferred but is slower compared to parallel input via steering wheel.