2018
A Brief Discussion on Driver
Abstract
Mandatory policies have played an important role for the automakers
develop better projects in terms of safety and fuel efficiency; while
customers of commercial vehicles are mainly interested in lowering
the Total Cost Ownership (TCO). A common factor among these
requirements is the driving style, which is influenced by external
sources. A lot of Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and
tech companies are launching driving feedback systems that look
over all of the data from the vehicle, driver and road in order to get
inputs that can lead to driver behavior improvements. Behaviorism
concepts and Human Machine Interface (HMI) were analyzed, once
they account on driver behavior, followed by a literature review on
feedback systems. This paper is aimed to discuss the alternatives of
different driver feedback platforms in regards to driver behavior.
Overall, the main result is the changes in decision making outcomes
about driving styles through promoting awareness.
Introduction
Even though vehicles technology is evolving from partial (L2) to
high (L4) level of automation [1], we can expect the driver having
vehicle control over the next two decades [2].
Regarding safety, anti-lock systems (ABS) is required on all new
passenger cars in Europe since 2004 and on commercial vehicles in
India since 2015 due to its highly effectiveness at assisting a driver in
maintaining vehicle control mainly in harsh braking situations.
However, some researches on this assistant system indicate that ABS
may not contribute to crash prevention at all [3]; whereas it was
revealed that 47% of 82 participants of a research did not pressed
sufficient the brake pedal when an object was threw in front of the
vehicle [4].
Another study on improving fuel economy of commercial vehicles
indicated that driver behavior can be responsible for as much as 35%
of consumption variation [5], what reflects directly on the TCO.
In this context is verified the need of improved driver assistant
systems for getting higher safety and fuel efficiency, thus, lower
TCO.
Page 1 of 7
Feedback Systems and Their Results
Ronaldo José Castro Eleotério,
Bruno Scarano Paterlini
The driver feedback system is an in-vehicle device that monitors
driver behavior using data inputs from the vehicle, driver and road,
outputting feedback in real time or after the trip has been completed,
pointing basically the safety and economical improvement potential.
What is expected to happen using this such system is a change from
bad driving style to a more responsible and aware behavior. Working
with reinforcement and punishment concept defined by Burrhus F.
Skinner, it’s possible to define some characteristics for improving
behavior changing capabilities of driver feedback systems.
Objectives
The general objective is to analyze driver feedback systems literature
in terms of Behaviorism theory and Human Machine Interface
(HMI).
The specifics objectives are:
1. Comprehend Behaviorism theory;
2. Review past and preview future HMI;
3. Analyze literature about driver feedback systems;
Methodology
This paper is a descriptive research, once it’s aimed to
correlate the Behaviorism theory to the driver feedback systems using
a qualitative approach, seeking to understand how the previous
researches and current products on the market deal with the problem
that is the need to improve the driving style.
The techniques used to compare and contrast data on this field are
literature review in order to complete a theoretical survey and a
market research to acquire knowledge of the current established
products.
Behaviorism
John B. Watson
An American psychologist, who originated Behaviorism after
conducting researches on animal behavior, child rearing, and
advertising at Columbia University in 1913. It assumes that behaviors
are responses to the environment stimulus [6].
Ivan P. Pavlov - Classical conditioning
A Russian physiologist who developed experiments with dogs, which
lead to the theory known as classical conditioning. This experiment
was based on a routine that first the dog was subjected to a food
stimulus (strong stimulus) paired with a bell stimulus (neutral
stimulus) for several times. After this learning process the result is
that only with the neutral stimulus he caused the same reaction on the
dog, salivation. Concluding that animals, including humans, create
new reactions based on their environment stimulus [7].
Figure 1. Steps of Pavlov experiment with dogs showing that after
conditioning the dog with both food and bell ring stimulus, the dog presented
the salivation (conditioned response) only with the neutral stimulus.
(https://www.dogalize.com/2018/04/pavlov-dog-classical-conditioning/, 2018)
Burrhus Frederic Skinner – Operant Conditioning
Figure 2. Operant Conditioning workflow: if the behavior is correct then
reinforcement is applied. But, if the behavior is incorrect, punishment is
applied. Positive stand for adding stimulus, while negative stands for
removing stimulus.
Page 2 of 7
An American psychologist, by the 1930s, suggested that feelings and
thoughts should also be considered to the Behaviorism [8]. The
nature of the consequences and their effects on behavior was
nominated as Operant Conditioning, which is a learning mechanism
for new behaviors, where the strength of a behavior is modified by
reinforcement or punishment, as the figure 2 describes:
Operant Conditioning features
Instant feedback
Crucial factor in order to avoid stronger association of incorrect
behavior instead of correct behavior. Also important to place
reinforcement or punishment. Cut anxiety and stress level, increase
on pleasure level.
Positive Reinforcement
Applicable when correct behavior was performed by adding desirable
stimulus that increases such behavior. Used to increase occurrence of
a correct response.
Negative Reinforcement
Applicable when correct behavior was performed by removing
desirable stimulus that increases such behavior. Also used to increase
occurrence of a correct response.
Positive Punishment
Applicable when incorrect behavior was performed by adding
desirable stimulus that increases such behavior. Used to decrease
occurrence of an incorrect response.
Negative Punishment
Applicable when incorrect behavior was performed by removing desirable
stimulus that increases such behavior. Also used to decrease occurrence of
an incorrect response.
Teaching machine
Skinner also developed the teaching machine based on the operant
conditioning, a simple mechanical equipment that create an improved
learning condition. This machine shows a problem and a blank space
to the student write the answer. Next the right answer (feedback) is
provided. In Skinner point of view, it worked in terms of:
1.Positive Reinforcement/Punishment: the faster feedback. Normally
the students need to wait in order to confirm if their answer were
right, but in this faster way the students receive a stimulus almost by
the same time they finish answering [9];
2. Negative Reinforcement/Punishment: freedom of fear of mistake
and anxiety, once the answer is instantaneous. These factor makes
studying more pleasure and the students feel it easier to go all the
away to its completion [9].
 Trending Human Machine Interface (HMI)
Analyzing backward the automotive HMI development, the main
purpose of the first automotive HMI was mechanical related. The
functionalities aimed to providing information about the car, like
speed, gas level and rev. counter. Progressively integrating the radio
and the cellphones. Information about the car and entertainment
functions mixed on the HMI are known as infotainment system [10].

Figure 3. Skinner teaching machine. Inside the box on the left side there are a
disc holder for the questions and answers to be provided to the student; on the
right side there is a paper roll in which the students must write the answer and
if necessary correct it after the feedback.(http://pleonasms.rssing.com/chan-
1613600/all_p240.html, 2018).

After analyzing all this content from Behaviorism, it`s time to assume
that the referential characteristics for a good driver feedback system
should be based on the last topics regarding Classical Conditioning
and Operant Conditioning:

 It`s possible to change driver behavior by adding external
stimulus using a proper device especially designed based
on the following topics. The whole device design should be
take into account once it must keep the driver engaged
during the trip and after a while using the system;
 Correct behavior might be promoted by adding stimulus
based on positive reinforcement and/or removing stimulus
based on negative reinforcement;
 Incorrect behavior might be discouraged by adding
stimulus based on positive punishment and/or removing
stimulus based on negative punishment.
 Real time feedback plays an important role mainly by
placing stimulus to the driver on the go, what enables
stronger association of correct and incorrect driver behavior
compared to after trip feedback systems. Also makes
possible to design real time gaming apps in order to keep
drivers engaged.
Figure 4. 1961 Buick Invicta instrument panel. (https://www.hemmings.com/,
20108)
It’s possible to verify that new interactive in-vehicle functionalities
have been influenced by technologies that customers are already used
to or current trends. Furthermore, it’s normal that the new
functionalities are motivated by the construction of safer, more
efficient, and more comfortable vehicle [11].
Current trends are pointing the future of HMI to connected mobiles
devices and cloud connection for cloud-based applications, which
will reduce the growing hardware demands. HMI will be dynamically
adaptive, depending on the drivers’ situation and habits. Something
looking like a smartphone with touch screen display, containing
information of the car, roads and the driver’s personal phone
applications.

The next steps will be:

1. Analyze Human Machine Interfaces (HMI) in order to

understand how and why the driver cabins and instrument
clusters became what we are used today in order to preview
the future of such devices.

2. Investigate how to engage drivers to keep using the system

during the trips while keeping driving safely until
autonomous driving vehicles become usual and this system
become useless.
Figure 5. Mercedes-Benz MBUX, the completely new infotainment system
released in 2018 at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. This new
interface has features based on artificial intelligence based on the cloud.
(http://www.autoconnectedcar.com/, 2018)

Page 3 of 7
As the number of smartphones users increase from 62,6 million in
2010 to 236,8 million in 2019 in the United States [12], Americans
say that “they couldn’t live without their smartphone” [13], mainly
the so-called digital natives [14].

Regarding these facts, most of all new cellphones have a powerful

processor, sensors like accelerometer and compass, GPS, Wi-Fi and
mobile internet connection. All this features turns the cellphone to be
a very good platform to receive different kinds of driver feedback
systems while most of the cars don’t have a device on the cluster with
a good screen size and internet connection. Also, the cellphone is a
platform that facilitates upgrades to the systems. New lessons could
be sent to the devices from the cloud, what could lead to avoid
drivers to stop using the systems because they got bored of the same
lessons or functionalities.

Engaging drivers
Figure 6. Three levels of driving tasks proposed by Rasmussen, Suetomi and
Whereas the number of drivers bring their own devices inside the Stanton.
cars, calling or texting, and accessing social media while driving is
increasing [15], it’s also a good opportunity for safe and fuel save
driving games in order to get their engagement.

Lack of engagement while driving can be caused by unsafe
smartphone usage [16]. It was suggested that smartphone apps should
be used to lock the smartphone while the cars are in motion in order
to mitigate risks of distraction [17]. However, adding engaging
stimuli for drivers through gaming apps have a direct impact on road
safety and user experience, showing positive effect on driver
behavior [18].
There are some related applications that provide feedback to drivers
without consider when it’s safe [19]. As result, they take the focus of
the driver away and it should be avoided.
Projecting a system that provide engaging experiences to the drivers
requires equilibrium between safety and fun [20]. Another
perspective of an extra device installed in the vehicle is that it would
require additional attention from the driver, who must keep watching
the road and all the devices. Resulting in increase of workload and
impacting on the acceptance of the new system [26].
Safety engaging experience
Once driving is a visual task [21], a real time feedback system should
use another way of transmit information. Therefore, sensory and/or
auditory ways would be safer than a pure visual one.
The main tasks of a driver were first defined by Rasmussen in [22]
and enhanced by Suetomi [23] and Stanton [24] in three levels. The
first tasks level is safety related, thus, the most relevant. It’s about
vehicle guidance and stabilization. The second level is about
enhancing the driving ability, like the ability to shift gear when
driving a manual transmission vehicle. The third level is the only one
not related to driving. It`s related to distractions while driving, e.g.,
using the cellphone and changing radio station.
Looking forward to keep driver`s focus on safety driving activities,
it’s necessary to postpone the non-guidance features of a real time
feedback system while dangerous situations are occurring [25], such
as harsh braking or fast lane changing. In systems designed to give
feedback after the trip, this wouldn’t be a concern.
Data input for the driver feedback device
The content of the feedback, real time or after trip, that could be
manipulated to apply reinforcement or punishment Skinner’s concept
must be based on trustable information. Data input can be streamed
from basically 3 sources [20]:
1.Vehicle (acceleration, speed, location, rev counter, etc.)
2.Road (traffic, topographic, road inclination, etc.)
3.Driver (heart rate, blood pressure, sleepiness, etc.)
Input data from vehicle
Vehicle data can be obtained from a device not connected to the
vehicle, just attached to the structure, like a cellphone, which has
been used to get vehicle position, speed, acceleration, deceleration
and deflection angle using only the cellphone sensors: accelerometer,
gyroscope and magnetometer. Using no external sensors in order to
get a more cost efficient, user-friendly and minimalist system as
described in [27]. Also in [27], there is a system block diagram which
revels the logical process of the data, as show in figure 7, wich shows
the data input block through a preprocessing via smoothing filter
block. The following block detect the potential events based on the
temporal range of the signals. Next the system algorithms detect the
events like right and left turn based on templates for safe driving
habits, shown in figure 8. After that, once the event matches a
template, a decision making algorithm classifies between risky and
safe driving habits and display. This solution
Other options to input signal data are:
 OEM device connected to the vehicle CAN bus or
connected to the vehicle sensors;
 Devices from tech companies connected to the On-Board
Diagnostics (OBD) connector via Bluetooth dongles, or
connected to the SAE FMS J1939 CAN bus, or also linked
to its own sensors;

Page 4 of 7
 Input data from road

Camera imagery data has already been used to identify collision

danger and road signals [28]. Improved systems like Adaptive Cruise
Control (ACC) uses a radar or laser sensor or a stereo camera in order
to brake the vehicle when it detects that the vehicle is approaching
another vehicle ahead. It is a safety information that could be used to
identify the driver behavior.

In terms of precision and cost benefit, road and vehicle data sources
are the best options at the current technological state. It’s a matter of
work on this sources to acquire as much information as possible. As
will be discussed next, driver source of data is still not accurate at
low prices.

An app around the vehicle and road data

BrakeMaster, a gamified approach to traffic red lights, that uses smart

cities information about the location and schedule of the traffic lights
and matches with information from the vehicle GPS to start the game
when the vehicle will have to stop because of a red light. It takes in
account the position of the brake pedal to trace a graph of the speed.
The graph has a curve for the ideal speed reduction, so the driver can
compare and understand better what to do. The app runs in a
cellphone, and gives feedback about the performance also via audio
only after the vehicle gets stopped [20]. It’s possible to visualize the
app prototype in the figure 9, while figure 10 indicates that, in
general, most of the participants of the research noticed a positive
stimulus playing the game.

Figure 9. Prototype of BrakeMaster, target curve in red, braking performance

in blue ([20]).
Figure 7. Sketch of driver feedback system design from ([27]).

Figure 8. Templates for right and left turn, which is compared to the signal
input in order to identify the vehicle events ([27]).

Figure 10. Circumplex Model result of interviews with participants of

BrakeMaster user study ([20] [34]).
Page 5 of 7
Input data from driver
Precisely accurate and trustable driver data sourcing, that are able to
get data from the driver physiological states, are heavy and expensive
[29]. Driver state detection serve as indicator for fatigue, using blink
detection algorithms [30] [31]. A system made of a smartphone and
sensors that was able to detect aggressive driving style was made by
[32]. Another system based on the Samsung Gear S smart watch can
measure heart rate and activity as an indicator of
drowsiness/sleepiness at the steering wheel and alert the driver in
order to avoid accidents [33]. This system also has two more
functionalities: 1. Send warnings to the driver reminding to take a rest
every 2 hours; and 2. Alert the driver in case of state of nervousness
is detected.
Conclusion
In this paper was investigated Behaviorism theory. While Classical
Conditioning reveals that driver behavior can be changed by external
stimulus, a feedback. Operant Conditioning shows that stimuli can be
added or removed by any Human Machine Interface (HMI) designed
especially for increase or decrease behaviors, and that real time
feedback systems have advantage compare to after trip feedback
ones.
Reviewing past and trending HMI was found that vehicle information
systems and entertainment systems have merged into what is called
infotainment system. This kind of system mix safety features with
fun features. It looks pretty much to an advanced smartphone,
connected to cloud applications via mobile internet, what also allows
the hardware to upgrade the software, increasing driver engagement.
In order to safely engage drivers to a driver feedback platform, it’s
recommended to take care about when real time feedback will be
displayed, otherwise it will take out attention from the driver.
Furthermore, it’s important other means of feedback than visual, once
driving is a visual task.
Analyzing the literature, most of related work do not take into
account how effective is the feedback. They care about the source of
data, how the data will be processed, how and when the feedback will
be displayed, also the quality and cost of the data acquainted.
However, they do not take into account any Behaviorism concept
purposely. What reveals that there is space to further works on this
field.
Overall, the analyzed literature showed positive result by the changes
in decision making outcomes about driving styles through promoting
awareness.
References
1. SAE (2014), Levels of Driving Automation Are Defined In New
SAE International Standard J3016, Society of Automotive
Engineers (www.sae.org); at
www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf.
Page 6 of 7
2. Litman, T. (2015), Autonomous vehicle implementation
prediction: Implications for transport planning. In transport
Research Board 94th Annual Meeting.
3. Cummings, P. and D. C. Grossman (2007)Antilock brakes and
the risk of driver injury in a crash: A case-control study,
Accident Analysis and Prevention 39 (2007) 995-1000.
4. Every, J. L. (2015). Development of a driver behavior based
active collision avoidance system. The Ohio State University.
5. Verma, R., Nahar, N., Tang, Z., and Saltsman, B., "A Driver
Assistance System for Improving Commercial Vehicle Fuel
Economy," SAE Technical Paper 2013-26-0018,
2013,https://doi.org/10.4271/2013-26-0018.
6. Watson, J. B. (1913). "Psychology as the Behaviorist Views it".
Psychological Review. 20: 158–177. doi:10.1037/h0074428.
7. Pavlov, I.P. (1927). Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of
the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex (translated
by G.V. Anrep). London: Oxford University Press. Google
preview of Dover 2003 reprint.
8. Skinner, BF (1976). About Behaviorism. New York: Random
House, Inc. ISBN 0-394-71618-3.
9. Skineer, B. F. (2007). Skinner fala sobre a Maquina de
Ensinar.Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmRmBgKQq20.
10. Bosshart, L., & Hellmueller, L. (2009). Pervasive entertainment,
ubiquitous entertainment. Communication Research Trends, 28,
3–19.Google Scholar.
11. Meixner G. et al. (2017) Retrospective and Future Automotive
Infotainment Systems—100 Years of User Interface Evolution.
In: Meixner G., Müller C. (eds) Automotive User Interfaces.
Human–Computer Interaction Series. Springer, Cham.
12. eMarketer. (2016). Number of smartphone users in the United
States from 2010 to 2019 (in
millions). http://www.statista.com/statistics/201182/forecast-of-
smartphone-users-in-the-us/.
13. Anderson, M. (2015a). 6 facts about Americans and their
smartphones.http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2015/04/01/6-facts-about-americans-and-their-
smartphones/.
14. Selwyn, N. (2009). The digital native: myth and reality.
In: Publication Cover (pp. 364–379). London: s.n..
15. Vollrath, M., Huemer, A. K., Teller, C., Likhacheva, A., &
Fricke, J. (2016). Do German drivers use their smartphones
safely? —Not really! Accident Analysis and Prevention, 96, 29–
38.
16. Steinberger, F., Moeller, A., & Schroeter, R. (2016). The
antecedents, experience, and coping strategies of driver boredom
in young adult males. Journal of Safety
Research, 59(December), 69–82. ISSN 0022-
4375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2016.10.007.
17. Coben, J. H., & Zhu, M. (2013). Keeping an eye on distracted
driving. JAMA, 309, 877–878.
18. Heslop, S. (2014). Driver boredom: Its individual difference
predictors and behavioural effects. Transportation Research
Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 22, 159–169.
31. You, C.-W., Montes-de-Oca, M., Bao, T. J., Lane, N. D., Lu, H.,
Cardone, G., Torresani, L., & Campbell, A. T. (2012). CarSafe:
A driver safety app that detects dangerous driving behavior.
using dual-cameras on smartphones. In Proceedings of the 2012
ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 671–672).
New York, NY, USA: ACM.

19. McCall, R., & Koenig, V. (2012). Gaming concepts and
incentives to change driver behaviour. In Ad Hoc Networking
Workshop (Med-Hoc-Net), 2012 The 11th Annual
Mediterranean (pp. 146–151).
20. Steinberger F., Schroeter R., Babiac D. (2017) Engaged
Drivers–Safe Drivers: Gathering Real-Time Data from Mobile
and Wearable Devices for Safe-Driving Apps. In: Meixner G.,
Müller C. (eds) Automotive User Interfaces. Human–Computer
Interaction Series. Springer, Cham.
21. Sivak, M. (1996). The information that drivers use: Is it indeed
90% visual? Perception, 25, 1081–1089.
22. J. Rasmussen. Information processing and human-machine
interaction - an approach to cognitive engineering. North
Holland Series in System Science and Engineering, 1986.
32. Hong, J.-H., Margines, B., & Dey, A. K. (2014). A smartphone-
based sensing platform to model aggressive driving behaviors.
In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4047–4056). New York,
NY, USA: ACM.
33. Aguilar, S. R., Merino, J. L. M., Sánchez, A. M., & Valdivieso,
Á. S. (2015). Variation of the heartbeat and activity as an
indicator of drowsiness at the wheel using a smartwatch.
International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Interactive
Multimedia 3.
34. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178.

23. T. Suetomi and K. Kido. Driver behaviour under a collision

warning system – a driving simulator study. Society of
Automotie Engineers - SAE 970279, 1997.

24. Neville A. Stanton and Mark S. Young. A proposed

psychological model of driving automation. In Taylor and
Francis, editors, Theoretical Issues in Er- gonomics Science,
volume 1, pages 315 – 331. Taylor and Francis, October 2000.

25. Holzmann F. (2008) Adaptive cooperation between driver

and assistant system. In: Adaptive Cooperation between
Driver and Assistant System. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

26. E. Bekiaris, S. Petica, and K. Brookhuis. Driver needs and

public accep- tance regarding telematic in-vehicle emergency
control aids. In Proceedings of the 4th Word Congress on
Intelligent Transport Systems, pages 223–231. The Automatic
Division of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Professional Engineering Publisher, 1997.

27. Eren, H., Makinist, S., Akin, E., & Yilmaz, A. (2012).
Estimating driving behavior by a smartphone. In Intelligent
Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2012 IEEE (pp. 234–239).

28. Koukoumidis, E., Martonosi, M., & Peh, L.-S. (2012).

Leveraging smartphone cameras for collaborative road
advisories. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 11, 707–
723.

29. Liang, Y., Reyes, M. L., & Lee, J. D. (2007). Real-time

detection of driver cognitive distraction using support vector
machines. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation
Systems, 8, 340–350.

30. Schroeter, R., Soro, A., & Rakotonirainy, A. (2013). Social cars:
sensing, gathering, sharing and conveying social cues to road
users. In B. Guo, D. Riboni & P. Hu (Eds.) Creating personal,
social, and urban awareness through pervasive computing (pp.
176–200). IGI Global.

Page 7 of 7