Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41559136›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

The role of take-over cue informativity in interrupted take-over requests in a semi-automated driving scenario.

Alexander Berger, Nicole Damm, Martin Baumann, Markus Kiefer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alexander BergerDepartment of Psychiatry, Section for Cognitive Electrophysiology, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany. alexander.berger@uni-ulm.de.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4659-7581
Nicole DammDepartment of Psychology, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Martin BaumannDepartment of Psychology, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Markus KieferDepartment of Psychiatry, Section for Cognitive Electrophysiology, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5189-4364

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In semi-automated driving, take-over requests (TOR) signal the driver to take over control, if the car's driving system is not able to handle a particular traffic situation autonomously. While previous research indicated that providing informative TORs aids take-over behavior, related experimental research on task cuing suggested that informative cues might also be harmful, if interrupted by another task. Hence, the present study tested whether the advantage of informative TORs diminishes if after a TOR cue an interrupting task is presented. This should resemble a scenario, where drivers are about to take over control in response to a TOR, but then are distracted, for example by an incoming phone call. To this end, we presented participants with videos of a semi-automated driving situation, where task-specific informative or generic, non-informative TOR cues indicated an upcoming take-over action. Crucially, in half of the trials, this TOR cue was interrupted. Results showed informative TOR cues to generally improve take-over performance, but the interrupting task to reduce the advantage of providing informative TORs. However, this effect took some time until it reached its maximum and vanished with further practice. In sum, the present study identified interrupting, distracting information and practice as factors moderating the effectiveness of TOR cues, which demand further consideration in the research of semi-automated driving.

Indexed as

Practice effectsSemi-automated drivingTake-over requestTask cuing

Identifiers

PMID41559136
PMCPMC12824352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.