IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS, VOL. SMC- II, NO.

6, JUNE 1981 393

Application of an Optimal Preview Control

for Simulation of Closed-Loop
Automobile Driving
CHARLES C. MAcADAM

Abstract- An optimal preview control method is applied to the automo- automobile path following problem produces substantive
bile path following problem. The technique is first used to examine the agreement when compared with driver/vehicle experimen-
straight-line regulatory driving task and results compared with similar ex-
perimental measurements. The method is further demonstrated by closed- tal measurements for both straight-line regulatory driving
loop simulation of an automobile driver/vehicle system during transient and transient lane-change maneuvers.
lane-change maneuvers. The computer simulation results are compared
with equivalent vehicle test measurements. II. THE OPTIMAL PREVIEW CONTROL
I. INTRODIJCTION Before applying the optimal preview control of [lI to the
automobile path following problem, the main results and
T HIS PAPER. presents example applications (to the symbol definitions contained therein are briefly reviewed
automobile path. following problem) of a general in this section for later reference. As derived in [1], for the
method of control synthesis presented in [1]. The method is linear system
demonstrated here by simulation of a closed-loop automo- x = Fx + gu (1)
bile/driver system and the results compared with
driver/vehicle test measurements. Results for the optimal y mTx (2)
preview control are also discussed within the context of where
manual control pursuit tracking task findings. x n X 1 state vector,
The control technique demonstrated herein is designed v scalar output related to the state by the n X lmT
for application to linear time-invariant systems utilizing constant observer vector transpose,
preview control strategies for regulation or tracking tasks. F constant n X n system matrix,
A common example of this type of control strategy occurs and
during normal automobile path following in which drivers g constant n X 1 control coefficient vector,
"look-ahead" to follow a desired path. Human operators, the optimal control u°(t) which minimizes a special form
as part of various man-machine systems, typically employ
preview control strategies to control and stabilize such of the local performance index,
systems. It is widely recognized that human operators are JIt+7't[
I f
J - J[fTi 2f(q)_Y(,
-(q)] W('q t))1 dy1 (3)
capable of controlling and adapting to a wide variety of
dynamical systems, many of which are vehicles with pre- over the current preview interval (t, t + T) where
view-oriented control requirements such as automobiles,
bicycles, and complex aircraft [2]-[8]. Clearly human con- W arbitrary weighting function over the preview inter-
trol of most vehicles would not be possible without some val
training by the operator to acquire an understanding of the and
vehicle response to various control inputs. While a certain / previewed input,
portion of this training serves to identify and reinforce is given by
learned open-loop responses for repeated and familiar con-
trol task scenarios, the remainder frequently serves to
identify and reinforce the operator's understanding or
"feel" of the vehicle response to control inputs continually Lt)
MT) +n- n+ ]g }
in use for closed-loop regulation and/or pursuit needs. It is
in this latter control category for general linear system { l t )mT[ I+ 2 (n + ]g} W(qT1 t )dqt
representations capable of preview control strategies, that
the method presented in [1] can find particular application.
As will be demonstrated in this paper, application to the / | j{ [ n_ I( n + 1
Manuscript received October 10, 1980; revised March 2, 1981.
The author is with the Highway Safety Research Institute of the *W(, t)dq] (4)
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.
0018-9472/81 /0600-0393$00.75 © 1981 IEEE
394 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS, VOL. SMC-1 1, NO. 6, JUNE 1981

where I is the identity matrix. For the special case of characteristic roots of the constant matrix
W(q - t) (T*), the Dirac delta function for 0 < T* < [F - gcT]
T, (4) simplifies to (9)
where
fa T= f(t + T*) -ml
mT[I +2
+n n!
(
xt ~:~1]X~Fn(7*) (+1)! g
UUM t(t
) (5) m TJTc(n~0){ qMT[I+ I W(q) dq
c-
T[Jn--- (n + 1)! ] JT{T Fn ( n) j ) d'}
=-[ f(t + T*) yo(t + T*)]/ (T*K ),
- (6) I rMT [I + 2 (n + l )! ]I W(ql) d1
the single-point preview control version of (4), where For the special case of W(q) = O(T*), (9) becomes
T[T
F n(T* )nl
n=1 (n+ 1)! ]g F- {gmT[I+ Fn(T*) ]/(T*.K)} (10)
Equation (6) represents a proportional controller with
gain inversely related to the preview interval T* and oper-
ating on the error between the previewed input f(t + T*) III. APPLICATION TO MANUAL CONTROL PURSUIT
and yo(t + T*), that portion of the previewed output deriv- TRACKING TASKS AS REPRESENTED BY
ing from the state vector's current initial condition. Like- STRAIGHT-LINE AUTOMOBILE DRIVING
wise (4) can be interpreted as a proportional con-troller The most well-known and characteristic property ex-
operating on a similar error averaged and weighted over hibited by human operators in tracking tasks is the trans-
the preview interval (t, t + T) by the additional terms port delay deriving from perceptual and neuromuscular
appearing in (4). mechanisms. By introducing this inherent delay property a
It is also shown in [1] that the optimal solution u°(t) can posteriori in the optimal preview control formulation, excel-
be expressed in terms of any current nonoptimal u(t) and lent agreement can be demonstrated between typical man-
correspondingly nonzero preview output error £(t) as ual control pursuit tracking task results and the resulting
t+ T optimal preview controller modified to include the inherent
f (q)A (,q)W(q -t)dq transport delay (heretofore referred to as the "modified"
U11(t) u(t) + t+_T optimal preview control).
A (,q)W(71q--- t) dq For reasons of clarity and notational simplicity, the
discussion in this section will make use only of (8), the
where single-point preview control version of (7). Equation (8)
can be represented by the block diagram of Fig. 1, where
(1) t)m nI (n + G(s) [Is F] -lg represents the controlled element vec-

tor transfer function, and u(t), the current control, is

E(q) -f(q)m?T(q,
- it)x(t) - u(t)A(q) related to the optimal control u0(t) by a transfer function
H(s) (previously assumed equal to one in the derivation of
the optimal control u°(t)). The introduction of the H(s)
n-I 1 n
transfer function is useful in describing systems which
function (or are presumed to do so) in an error minimiza-
For the special case of W(q - t)-- 6(T*), as before, (7) tion fashion, but fail to achieve the precise optimal control
redtuces to due to an inherent limitation within the controller or
control process itself, e.g., delays resulting from processor
140(t) -u(t) + (T
T*.K(8
K (8) calculations and sample hold operations in digital systems,
or perceptual/neuromuscular lags in the case of a human
The formulation expressed by (7) can be useful in describ- controller. By Jetting H(s)- e-St, those actual delay limi-
ing systems which do not achieve, though closely ap- tations displayed by human operators during tracking tasks
proximate, the defined optimal system behavior. Such cases can be approximated by the parameter T, an effective
may arise from limitations in achieving the precise optimal transport lag. By incorporating this approximation and
control due to time lags or dynamic properties inherent in noting then that the transfer function relating u(t) and
the controller and not accounted for a priori in the optimi- E(t + T*) is -ST/(e -sT)KT*, Fig. reduces to Fig. 2,
e

zation. The next two sections adopt this view for the a single-loop puirsuit tracking formulation. The open-loop
car/driver man--machine system in an attempt to describe transfer function Yo(s) relatingy(t + T*) and E(t +- T*) is
and explain actual closed-loop driving behavior. given by
Finally, it was also shown in [1] that information con-
cerning stability of the closed-loop system utilizing the e-ST mT'p(t + T*, t)G(s)
Yo(s) _ST 1+- -]. (11)
optimal preview control of (4) or (7) is provided by the I - e--5 KT*
 -. .
MAC &DAM' OPTIMAL PREVIEW CONTROL 395

+
+. &
e (t++ u-(t) x (t)
f (t +-T ) 4i G (s) m T4)(t +T-
+

- KT 1 _ . ~KT"

Fig. 1. Block diagramn for the single-point preview control.

+ £(t+T') y(t-+T)
f(t+T1) .y(+1 T"
KT

Fig. 2. Equivalent block diagram for the single-point preview control, H(s) e._5
The stability of this system is determined by the char- SIM1ULRTED

_il -4 - l
acteristic roots of I + YO(s), or equivalently, C)
cD m MERSURED
.=
1 + e sTm T (t t- T*, t)G(s))/KT* - 0. (12) (N

To test the utility of this model by comparison with

experimental findings, open-loop gain/phase frequency re-
sponse results measured by Weir et al. [9. Fig. 12-C] for an
automobile straight-line regulatory control task are pre- CD
sented in Figs. 3 and 4. These experimental resuilts repre-
sent the open-loop frequency response relating the driver's
output (presumably an estimate of future lateral positioni) m
to an assumed error, derived by the driver, between the
previewed input (straight road ahead) and the driver"s Cl
output. Since this may be categorized as a form of linear
pursuit tracking, the formulation of (1 1) is accommodated. 4
K .4
Also shown in Figs. 3 and 4 is the frequency response
calculation for (11) with parameters T'* - 3.0 (s) and T-
0.26 (s). The model output y(t + T*) is the estimated CD -4-4 --.
I
11
C=
vehicle lateral position at time t + T*; the input f(t + T*) U' I
-0 is the lateral displacement of the previewed path. The
automobile (F, g) dynamics used in (11) appear in Ap- 3 4 5 6 789' .49,
2 3 4 5 6 78
pendix I-A and duplicate those identified in [9]. The values
c
lxlQ 1 lxilO
of T* and T were selected to fit the experimental data as FREa. (RRD/SEC)
closely as the single-point model would permit. As can be Fig. 3. Frequency response gain comparison.
seen, the model and experimental results display excellent
agreement. Not only does the preview model reproduce the his/her effective transport lag associated with this particu-
--6 db/octave slope of the familiar manual control "cross- lar control task. The values of T* and T used here fall well
over" model [2], [8] gain characteristic, but also the peaking within the range identified by other investigators studying
phase characteristic usually displayed in manual control straight-line automobile driving [10]-[12] and human oper-
task experimental data of this kind. ator tracking performance [2], [41, [9].
The model parameters T* and T appearing in (11) repre- Interestingly, for the relatively simple control task of
sent the average preview time used by the driver and typical straight-line automobile regulation as discussed here,
396 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS, VOL. SMC-lI. NO. 6, JUNE 1981

- SIMULPTED CD CD CD
C MERSURED
(D CD CD (0
CD (D CD (D

CD
If)
_ - A
30.5 M
9 Fig. 5. Lane-change test course.
WC:
CD
COI)
+ SIMULRTED
U) (25
- MERSURED
CE X,) Li
I- (04

co
CD wc.
a:
00,0
CO -
,

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

co TIME
(C,
ol', -m SIMULATED
M--tIEPSURED
ixl I
FREO. (RRD/SEC)
lx1l0
-'_
Fig. 4. Frequency response phase comparison.

the vehicle dynamics portion of the total transfer function 0.00 1.UQ 2.00 3.00
'TIME
4.00 5.00 6.00o
(I1) does not play a dominant role except at very low
frequencies. As a result, the open-loop transfer function
gain characteristic (11) is closely approximated by the
human operator term, e Ss/(l - e ST) -S/TS Such a
e

result would support the well-known fact that tracking task

test results for simple automobile regulation [8], [9] can
generally be approximated by the "cross-over" model form
Ce S/s (C being the "cross-over" gain constant) in the 2.00 3.00 4.00
TIME
vicinity of the cross-over frequency. Moreover, in such
cases where the above approximation does hold, 1/ be- Fig. 6. Closed-loop simulation/test result comparison.
comes C in the "cross-over" model representation.
For the simple manual control pursuit tracking task, as the controller. Using straight-line automobile regulation as
represented here by straight-line automobile regulation, the example, the single-point preview model was compared
an
modified optimal preview controller, even employed in with experimental results within the frequericy domain. In
only a single-point form [W(-q t) = B(T*)1, appears to this section application to the tracking problem is demon-
accurately mimic human control behavior. It might, there- strated using the general preview control model (7), with an
fore, seem reasonable to conjecture that human operator inherent transport time delay to simulate a closed-loop
strategy during simple pursuit tracking (or at least straight-
automobile/driver path following maneuver. Results from
line automobile regulation) is closely akin to an optimal the model are conmpared with time history measurements
preview error minimization process which ignores or is from corresponding full-scale vehicle tests.
unaware of transport delay mechanisms inherent in the The specific closed-loop maneuver examined here re-
control processor. A more stringent test of this hypothesisquired an automobile driver to perform a standard 3.66 m
is offered in the following section wherein transient auto-(12-ft) lane-change within a distance of 30.5 m (100 ft) at a
mobile path following is examined using the modified vehicle speed of approximately 26.8 m/s (60 mi/h). The
optimal preview control model in its complete form. initiation and completion of the lane change was con-
APPLICATION OF THE OPTIMAL PREVIEW CONTROL
strained by 3.05-m wide (10 ft) cone-marked lanes (Fig. 5).
FOR SIMULATION OF CLOSED-LOOP TRANSIENT
The test vehicle was a standard American compact with
measured parameter values shown in Appendix I-B. A
AUTOMOBILE PATH FOLLOWING
representative test result for this vehicle/driver combina-
The previous section addressed the applicability of the tion appears in Fig. 6. showing recorded-time histories
optimal preview control to the problem of preview regula- of lateral acceleration, yaw rate, and front-wheel steer
tion and the effects of an inherent transport delay within angle [ 13].
MAcADAM. OPTIMAI PREVIEW CONIROI3 397

Also shown in Fig. 6 are computer simulation results -- SIMULATED

using the optimal preview control (7) with an assumed LCD5
-- MERSURED'
human operator transport delay ternm -ST relating u°(t)
-J
.LJ

and u(t). The transport lag term is included here. as in the

c:
previiouis section, to approximate the principal human oper-
ator lag effects. The calculation of (7), steer angle, seen in CE16

Fig. 6 is for values of T 0.2 (s) and T -1.3 (s) using ten 1.00 2.00 3.00
TIME
4.00 5.00 6.00
O ,'
equally spaced points in the preview interval to approxi- ._

mate the integral. The values of T and T were selected to c, -

---
c,
SINULATED
mr:c,c ipr:n
closely fit the test measurements. The (F, g) automobile cr
LOG
dynamics model is the same two-degree-of-freedom model
LLJr-) OCD.
appearing in Appendix I-A, evaluated for the parameter >-CD
c:
values identified in Appendix I-B. The previewed input
f(t7) appearing in (7) represents the desired lateral path a:.o
,0. 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
deviation and was obtained during the simulation using the TIME
simple straight-line path segments shown in Fig. 5 as input. _°. -a- SIMULFTED
As seen from Fig. 6, excellent agreement can be obtained a:Z
a:
a MIERSURED
between the experimental results and simulation predic- 1 -:

CZ)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
tions using the two numerical parameters (T, T) and a
a: a:

simple straight-line path input. Variations in the value of T Ca p -

__,__- _,______
primarily influenced the closed-loop system damping; larger LU

values producing reduced damping. Variations in the value 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.( 00
of T influenced control (steering) amplitude as well as TIME
damping; larger values of T producing lower control am- Fig. 7. Closed-loop simulation/test result comparison- modified
vehicle.
plitude and increased damping.
Finally, Fig. 7 shows a comparison of the preview model )K BRSELINE VEHICLE
predictions and measured test results for a modified set of (D MODIFIED VEHICLE CK
C
(t9MuK
vehicle dynamics (F, g). The same vehicle was employed E

but with modifications to its mass center and rear tires so H-

as to produice a new set of parameter values listed in a:
co VK
(D
Appendix I-C. As shown in Fig. 7 the principal change in CD (D
the closed-loop response from Fig. 6 is an increased steer- LLI
ing gain (lower steering amplitude for the same nominal Ca [ (D)
oCX
maneuver) and decreased damping. Larger values of T (0.3)
and T (1.55) were required in the calculation of (7), shown
as steer angle in Fig. 7, to better approximate the reduced
damping and smaller amplitude steering control. A com- 0.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 150.00
parison of computed vehicle path trajectories, correspond- LONGITUDINRL POSITION (M)
ing to the baseline and modified vehicle responses shown Fig. 8. Simulated path trajectories.
in Figs. 6 and 7, appears in Fig. 8.
Characteristic roots for each of the closed-loop systems, X BRSEI-INE VEHICLE
as calculated from the constant matrix (13), are shown in CD MODIFIED VEHICLE
Fig. 9. The matrix (13) (see Appendix I-D) is similar to
that given by (9) but includes the influence of the transport a:4-
lag term e-St approximated by the first-order Pade poly- 2c:
HI
nomial CD

a:H a:D
*n
C=)
1+2S

vD
[ __ _ ____ _ *

(13)
0.0
Note that the reduced damping in the driver/vehicle *K P4)
-3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00
responses, displayed in Figs. 7 and 8, is equivalently repre- RERL
sented by the corresponding closed-loop characteristic root Fig. 9. Characteristic roots of the baseline and modified closed-loop
locations shown in Fig. 9. systems.
398 IEEE TRANSACT'IONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS, VOL. SMC-1 1, NO. 6, JUNE 1981

These results and those of the previous section demon- where

strate useful application of the optimal preview model in
simulation of closed-loop automobile driving. The prin-
cipal conclusion concerning these results is that driver
steering control strategy during path following can be
accurately represented as a time-lagged optimal preview
control. Similar applications and extensions to problems in 0 1 0 U] 01
other fields are clearly suggested by the results shown here.
F -0 Al
B1 01
A2 B2 01, g 1 C21
ILoJ.
0
CONCLU SION
0 0 1 0]i
The optimal preview control model, applied here to the
closed-loop automobile path following problem, offers a and
useful and direct method for representing closed-loop be- t- CJ )/MU
Al= 2(C,X
havior of linear driver/vehicle systems. It is suggested that
driver automobile steering control strategy during path B1- 2(bCa'_ aCLF)/mU T-
U
following can be viewed as a time-lagged optimal preview
control process. C1 - 2Ca /nm
The general linear system formulation of the preview A2= 2(bCaR aC,)/IU
control methodology, demonstrated here, pernmiits appli-
cation to a broad range of problems relating to man-
machine systenms.
B -- 2(a2C +i b2CaR )/IU

APPENDIX I
C2-2a(',,/I.
The calculation of (1) appearing in Figs. 3 and 4 used
A. Vehicle Dynamics the following parameter values identified in [9] for ve-
hicle D
The linear dynanmical equations of an automobile for
lateral and yaw motions are a 1.41 m (4.63 ft)
b = 1.41 m (4.63 ft)
3;- v + U4 (Al) m = 2016 kg (138 slug)
I -4013 mnN s2 (2960 ft lbsS2)
v [H2(Ca + CaR)/mU] v + [2(bCak- aCa)/mI -- U]r U = 22.3 m/s (73.3 ft/s)
+ (2Ca,/m)8FW (A2) C. i.25 266 N/rad (5 680 lb/rad)
C, --70 933 N/rad (15 960 lb/rad).
r-[2(bC (aR -aCt )/IU]v+ [-2(a2Caf + b2C, )/IU r The constant observer vector mTr (1, °s 0, 0) provided the
vehicle lateral position y.
+ (2aCaC/I )6F W (A3)
B. Baseline Vehicle Parameter Vallues
4zr (A4)
The vehicle parameter values listed below atd used in
where the calculations appearing in Fig. 6 were derived from
y inertial lateral displacement of the vehicle rnass vehicle wheelbase/weight ineasurements and steady-state,
center, constant-steer vehicle test results [13]
v lateral velocity in the vehicle body axis systemn, a - 1.37 m (4.5 ft)
r yaw rate about the vertical body axis, b - 1.22 m (4.0 ft)
vehicle heading angle, and m 1563 kg (107 slug)
SFW front tire steer angle, control variable. I - 2712 m N-s' (2 000 ft.lb s2)
The paramreters appearing in (Al)-(A4) are U = 25.9 rn/s (85 ft/s)
C-- 19 438 N/rad (4 370 lb/rad)
U forward vehicle velocity, CIXR33 628 N/rad (7 560 lb/rad).
CC,F COT R front and rear tire cornering coefficients.
a, b forward and rearward locations of tires fromn The weighting function W appearing in (7) was selected as
the vehicle mass center, and constant 1.0 over the ten-point preview interval.
rn, I vehicle mass and rotational inertia.
C Modified Vehicle Parameter Values
The above equations can be expressed in matrix notation
as
The vehicle pararmeters of Appendix T-B were altered to
those values shown in this section by a rearward shift in
X-EX + 98FW (AS) the vehicle mass center and a decrease in rear tire inflation
MACADAM: OPTIMAL PREVIEW CONTROI9 399

pressures into (AIO) produces the closed-loop state equation

a = 1,43 m (4.7 ft)
b - I
l16m (3.8 ft)
m 1753 kg (120 slug) ~~ F
l~ )-C' 2I cg
T9 2{U )(ll
I -2712 m.N s2 (2000 ftb.S2)
U 25.9 in/s (85 ft/s) equivalentt of (A6)-(A.8). For small T, stability of the
CnFX 20 906 N/rad (4700 lb/fad) time-lagged optimal preview-conti olled system is provided
C'aR- 29 536 N/rad (6640 lb/rad). by the characteristic roots of the systemi matrix appearirng
in (AlI).
'Ithe closed--loop calculation using these par ameter values
appears in Fig. 7.
REFERENCES
). Stability of the Closed-Loop Optimal Preview- Controlled
System Including a Transport 'ime Lag [1] C C. MacAdan, '"An optimal preview control for linear systentis,"
J. Dynamic Systems, Meastirenment, Control, Sept., 1980.
(liven the system [2] D, T. McRuer, et al., "New approaches to humnan-pilot/vehicle
analysis," Systems Technology, Inc., Tech. Rep., AFFDL-TR-67-
150, Feb. 1968.
x-.*Fx + gu (A6) [3] W. W. Wierwille, G. A. C(agne, and J. R. Knight, "An experirmiental
study of human operator models and closed-loop analysis methods
u e -STUO (A7) for high-speed autombile driving," IEEE Trans. Hum. Factors
Electron., vol. HFE--8, no. 3, pp. 187-201, Sept. 1967.
[4] K. Tanaka, N. Goto, and K. Washizu, "A comparison of technXliques
0-_ CX (A8) for identifying hurmain operator dynamuics utilizing time series analy-
sis," in Proc. Twelfth Annu. Con]J Manual Control, Untiv. of Illinois,
Urbana, IL, May 25--27, 1976, pp. 673-693.
where F, g, uo, and c7 are defined in (1), (4), and (9). If the [5] D. H. Weir, "Motorcycle handling dynamics and rider control and
transport time lag e ST is approximated by the first--order the effect of designi configuration on response and performance,"
Ph.D. dissertation, Univer. of California, Los Angeles, CA 1972.
Pade polynomial, [6] S. Ben-Ari and J. R. Ellis, "The control of an articulated semitrailer
vehicle," in Vehicle Safety Legislation---Its Engineering and Social
Implications. London: Mechanical Engineering Pablications
s Limited, 1975.
2 , (A9) [7] D. L. Kleinman, S. Barorn, and W. H. ILevison, "An optimal coiitrol
+ 25 model of hunian responise, part I: Theory and validation," Auto-
matica, vol. 6, pp. 357-369, 1970.
[8] D. T. McRuer et al., "New results in diiver steering control models,"
(A7) becomes Human Factors, vol. 19, pp. 381 -397, Aug. 1977.
[9] D. H. Weir, R. J. DiMarco, and D. T. McRuer, "Evaluation and
correlation of driver/veiicle data," vol. II, Final Tech. Rep., Na-
2 tional Highway Traffic Safety Admini., DOT-HS-803-246, Apr. 1977.
ut 2 (--u -t 0) -... (Al0) [10] R. G. Mortimer and C. M. Jorgeson, "Eye fixations of drivers as
affected by highway and traffic characteristics and moderate doses
of alcohol," in Proc. Sixteenth Aninu. Mvfeeting, Human Factors
Substitutiton of Society, Oct. 17-19, 1972, pp. 86-92.
[11] M. Kondo and A. Ajilmline, "Driver's sight point and dynamanics of
u° -c 'I:
the driver-vehicle-systenm related to it," SAE Paper No. 680104,
Automotive Enigineering Congress, Detroit, MI, Jan. 8-12, 1968.
and [12] D. A. Gordon, "Experimental isolation of drivers' visuaal input,"
Public Roads, vol. 33, pp. 266-273, 1966.
[13] "Comparison of vehicle test piocedures," Contract DRI)A 781433,
t*o -c'[Fx 1-
gu] i-ighway Safety Research Institute, Urniversity of Michigan, 1978.