These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

497 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26843570)

  • 1. Keep Your Scanners Peeled: Gaze Behavior as a Measure of Automation Trust During Highly Automated Driving.
    Hergeth S; Lorenz L; Vilimek R; Krems JF
    Hum Factors; 2016 May; 58(3):509-19. PubMed ID: 26843570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Behavioral Changes to Repeated Takeovers in Highly Automated Driving: Effects of the Takeover-Request Design and the Nondriving-Related Task Modality.
    Roche F; Somieski A; Brandenburg S
    Hum Factors; 2019 Aug; 61(5):839-849. PubMed ID: 30517032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving.
    Körber M; Baseler E; Bengler K
    Appl Ergon; 2018 Jan; 66():18-31. PubMed ID: 28958427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Prior Familiarization With Takeover Requests Affects Drivers' Takeover Performance and Automation Trust.
    Hergeth S; Lorenz L; Krems JF
    Hum Factors; 2017 May; 59(3):457-470. PubMed ID: 27923886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. From partial and high automation to manual driving: Relationship between non-driving related tasks, drowsiness and take-over performance.
    Naujoks F; Höfling S; Purucker C; Zeeb K
    Accid Anal Prev; 2018 Dec; 121():28-42. PubMed ID: 30205284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The effect of motor control requirements on drivers' eye-gaze pattern during automated driving.
    Goncalves RC; Louw TL; Quaresma M; Madigan R; Merat N
    Accid Anal Prev; 2020 Dec; 148():105788. PubMed ID: 33039820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Autonomous emergency braking systems adapted to snowy road conditions improve drivers' perceived safety and trust.
    Koglbauer I; Holzinger J; Eichberger A; Lex C
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2018 Apr; 19(3):332-337. PubMed ID: 29227692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. What determines the take-over time? An integrated model approach of driver take-over after automated driving.
    Zeeb K; Buchner A; Schrauf M
    Accid Anal Prev; 2015 May; 78():212-221. PubMed ID: 25794922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Fostering Drivers' Trust in Automated Driving Styles: The Role of Driver Perception of Automated Driving Maneuvers.
    Ma Z; Zhang Y
    Hum Factors; 2024 Jul; 66(7):1961-1976. PubMed ID: 37490722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The influence of highly automated driving on the self-perception of drivers in the context of Conduct-by-Wire.
    Kauer M; Franz B; Maier A; Bruder R
    Ergonomics; 2015; 58(2):321-34. PubMed ID: 25343710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Drivers' gaze patterns when resuming control with a head-up-display: Effects of automation level and time budget.
    Xu C; Louw TL; Merat N; Li P; Hu M; Li Y
    Accid Anal Prev; 2023 Feb; 180():106905. PubMed ID: 36508949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The effect of varying levels of vehicle automation on drivers' lane changing behaviour.
    Madigan R; Louw T; Merat N
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(2):e0192190. PubMed ID: 29466402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Modeling takeover behavior in level 3 automated driving via a structural equation model: Considering the mediating role of trust.
    Jin M; Lu G; Chen F; Shi X; Tan H; Zhai J
    Accid Anal Prev; 2021 Jul; 157():106156. PubMed ID: 33957474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Driving Aggressively or Conservatively? Investigating the Effects of Automated Vehicle Interaction Type and Road Event on Drivers' Trust and Preferred Driving Style.
    Lee Y; Dong M; Krishnamoorthy V; Akash K; Misu T; Zheng Z; Huang G
    Hum Factors; 2024 Sep; 66(9):2166-2178. PubMed ID: 37295016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The effect of information from dash-based human-machine interfaces on drivers' gaze patterns and lane-change manoeuvres after conditionally automated driving.
    Gonçalves RC; Louw TL; Madigan R; Quaresma M; Romano R; Merat N
    Accid Anal Prev; 2022 Sep; 174():106726. PubMed ID: 35716544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Assessing Drivers' Trust of Automated Vehicle Driving Styles With a Two-Part Mixed Model of Intervention Tendency and Magnitude.
    Lee JD; Liu SY; Domeyer J; DinparastDjadid A
    Hum Factors; 2021 Mar; 63(2):197-209. PubMed ID: 31596618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Were they in the loop during automated driving? Links between visual attention and crash potential.
    Louw T; Madigan R; Carsten O; Merat N
    Inj Prev; 2017 Aug; 23(4):281-286. PubMed ID: 27655754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Assessing drivers' response during automated driver support system failures with non-driving tasks.
    Shen S; Neyens DM
    J Safety Res; 2017 Jun; 61():149-155. PubMed ID: 28454860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Moving Into the Loop: An Investigation of Drivers' Steering Behavior in Highly Automated Vehicles.
    Alsaid A; Lee JD; Price M
    Hum Factors; 2020 Jun; 62(4):671-683. PubMed ID: 31180728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Psychophysiological responses to takeover requests in conditionally automated driving.
    Du N; Yang XJ; Zhou F
    Accid Anal Prev; 2020 Dec; 148():105804. PubMed ID: 33128991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 25.