Drivers of partially automated vehicles are blamed for crashes that they cannot reasonably avoid.

People seem to hold the human driver to be primarily responsible when their partially automated vehicle crashes, yet is this reasonable? While the driver is often required to immediately take over from the automation when it fails, placing such high expectations on the driver to remain vigilant in partially automated driving is unreasonable. Drivers show difficulties in taking over control when needed immediately, potentially resulting in dangerous situations. From a normative perspective, it would be reasonable to consider the impact of automation on the driver's ability to take over control when attributing responsibility for a crash.

Haptic human-human interaction does not improve individual visuomotor adaptation.

Haptic interaction between two humans, for example, a physiotherapist assisting a patient regaining the ability to grasp a cup, likely facilitates motor skill acquisition. Haptic human-human interaction has been shown to enhance individual performance improvement in a tracking task with a visuomotor rotation perturbation. These results are remarkable given that haptically assisting or guiding an individual rarely benefits their individual improvement when the assistance is removed.

Motion Plan Changes Predictably in Dyadic Reaching.

Parents can effortlessly assist their child to walk, but the mechanism behind such physical coordination is still unknown. Studies have suggested that physical coordination is achieved by interacting humans who update their movement or motion plan in response to the partner's behaviour. Here, we tested rigidly coupled pairs in a joint reaching task to observe such changes in the partners' motion plans.

Comparing the demands of destination entry using Google Glass and the Samsung Galaxy S4 during simulated driving.

The relative impact of using a Google Glass based voice interface to enter a destination address compared to voice and touch-entry methods using a handheld Samsung Galaxy S4 smartphone was assessed in a driving simulator. Voice entry (Google Glass and Samsung) had lower subjective workload ratings, lower standard deviation of lateral lane position, shorter task durations, faster remote Detection Response Task (DRT) reaction times, lower DRT miss rates, and resulted in less time glancing off-road than the primary visual-manual interaction with the Samsung Touch interface. Comparing voice entry methods, using Google Glass took less time, while glance metrics and reaction time to DRT events responded to were similar.