Variable Warning Intensity for Automated Vehicle Driver Awareness

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing vehicle warning systems are ineffective in varying warning intensity and control takeover based on the operator's awareness of objects proximate to the vehicle, often providing unnecessary warnings or interventions when the operator is alert and aware.

Innovation Solution

A cognitive-driver-assist system that utilizes an object-detection device and an operator-detection device, with a controller that adjusts warning intensity and control takeover authority based on the operator's awareness, increasing warnings and limiting operator control when the operator is not aware of objects in their path.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If the warning system always provides maximum warning intensity, then safety is improved, but operator annoyance increases when the operator is already aware of the object

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesafetyVSAvoidoperator annoyance
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The warning intensity is made dynamic rather than static. The system continuously monitors operator awareness state and adjusts warning intensity in real-time based on whether the operator is aware or unaware of the detected object. This resolves the contradiction by providing high intensity warnings only when necessary (operator unaware) and reducing intensity when the operator is already aware, thereby maintaining safety while reducing annoyance.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes the parameter of warning intensity based on the operator's awareness state. When the operator is detected as unaware of the object, the warning intensity is increased to maximum level. When the operator is aware, the warning intensity is reduced or eliminated. This parameter adaptation resolves the contradiction between safety and operator comfort.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Reliability

If the system takes over control frequently to prevent collisions, then safety is improved, but operator authority is reduced when the operator is alert and capable

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesafetyVSAvoidoperator authority
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The degree of control takeover is made dynamic based on operator awareness. The system monitors whether the operator is aware of objects and adjusts the level of automated control intervention accordingly. When the operator is unaware, the system takes over control to prevent collisions. When the operator is aware, the system reduces or eliminates control takeover, preserving operator authority and ease of operation while maintaining safety when needed.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The parameter of control takeover authority is changed based on operator state detection. The system adjusts the degree of automation intervention from full takeover to minimal or no takeover depending on whether the operator is aware or unaware of potential hazards. This resolves the contradiction between safety and operator control by adapting the level of intervention to actual operator capability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Reliability

If the system provides warnings for all detected objects, then collision prevention is improved, but unnecessary warnings increase when the operator is alert

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecollision preventionVSAvoidsignal relevance
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The warning activation is made dynamic based on operator awareness state. The system does not provide static warnings for all objects regardless of operator state. Instead, it dynamically determines whether to issue warnings based on real-time detection of operator awareness. This resolves the contradiction by filtering out unnecessary warnings when the operator is already aware, thereby maintaining signal relevance while preserving collision prevention capability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The parameter of warning activation is changed based on operator state. The system adjusts whether warnings are issued at all depending on whether the operator is detected as aware or unaware of the object. This selective activation based on operator state resolves the contradiction between comprehensive collision prevention and maintaining warning relevance, eliminating unnecessary warnings while preserving critical alerts.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentEP3313706B1Cognitive drive assist with variable warning for automated vehicles
Publication Date: 2021.08.25 APTIV TECHNOLOGIES LTD
  • EP3313706B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3313706B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP3313706B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

A cognitive-driver-assist system (10) includes an object-detection device (18), an operator-detection device (22), and a controller (20). The object-detection device (18) is operable to detect when an object (16) is proximate to a host-vehicle (14). The operator-detection device (22) is operable to determine when an operator (12) of the host- vehicle (14) is aware of the object (16). The controller (20) is configured to output a warning- signal (24) for the operator (12) of the host-vehicle (14) when the object- detection device (18) detects the object (16). The warning- signal (24) is characterized by a warning-intensity (28) that is variable. The controller (20) is configured to increase the warning-intensity (28) when the operator (12) is not aware of the object (16).