Changsha Automobile Innovation Institute’s Division of Acoustics is supported by a team of sound designers, music producers, engineers, scientists, and psychologists. The primary goal of this group is to design and test audio for electric vehicles, fuel-cell engine vehicles, and combustion engine vehicles. The team is made up of people from a diverse range of backgrounds drawing from an equally diverse range of diciplines. Communication between team members can be a challenge. Guidelines for describing the sound design process are not well-established when compared to visual design, where products can be described by illustrations. (Mullet & Sano, 1996; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996; Watzman, 2002; Buxton, 2010). Similarly, in the field of industrial design objects can be outlined by 3D models or multiple 2D illustrations (Urban & Hauser, 1980; Krishnan & Ulrich, 2001; Roozenburg & Eekels, 1995; Eppinger & Ulrich, 2016; Sokovic & Kopac, 2006). In addition to this issue, communication between team members can be challenging when individuals have studied and worked in different disciplines. This communication gap is the main issue that will be addressed in this presentation. Another issue is that today’s product sounds continue to be based on the subjective experience of the product sound designer, which prevents effective communication between the sound designers, engineers, scientists, psychologists, and clients. In order to complete our work to a higher standard, the sound design processes both within the Division and between the Division and its clients must be made more effective. The presentation will reference previous research to highlight the importance of building a comprehensive theoretical framework to support the process of sound design for vehicles, while introducing the relevant work being done by Changsha Automobile Innovation Institute.

Evaluation of Co-pilot Display Engagement: Driver Distraction Potential and Experience Jun Ma, Jiateng Li* School of Automotive Studies, Tongji University, Cao-an Road No.4800, 201804, Shanghai, China KEYWORDS – Co-pilot display, Driver distraction, Experience, Driving simulator ABSTRACT Background, research gap, and objective: Multi-screen and large screen are two main trends of intelligent cockpit design centered on user experience. An increasing number of production cars are equipped with multiple screens, especially the co-pilot display to enhance the front passenger experience. However, research to date has not yet evaluated the distraction potential and driver experience of co-pilot display engagement. This study seeks to develop a framework for quantifying the visual distraction potential, cognitive distraction potential, and driver subjective experience of the engagement. Methodology: This study proposes a novel method for the assessment of co-pilot display engagement by measuring the driver's eye movements, reaction to the detection response task (DRT) and subjective experience. Specifically, glance and fixation metrics were employed to estimate visual demand. DRT reaction time was introduced to measure cognitive demand. For the purpose of measuring driver experience, a subjective rating of disturbance was adopted. An experimental user study (n=20) was conducted in a driving simulator connected to production vehicles for evaluating the co-pilot display engagement in the video-watching condition. Additionally, Bluetooth headsets and screen privacy filters were introduced to explore possible solutions that could mitigate distraction potential and improve the driver experience. Results: In the video condition, the co-pilot display engagement imposed significantly higher visual and cognitive demands than in the baseline condition (without co-pilot display engagement). Nevertheless, in addition to the average fixation duration, other eye-tracking metrics indicated that co-pilot display engagement was significantly less visually and cognitively demanding than two reference tasks (1-back task and surrogate reference task). Furthermore, the availability of the screen privacy filter was able to reduce visual demand, yet the difference was not statistically significant. The cognitive demand of the engagement was greatly decreased by the Bluetooth headset, even to the point where it was not significantly different from the baseline. Considering the subjective experience of the driver, the introduction of the Bluetooth headset can also effectively alleviate the disturbance caused by the co-pilot display engagement. Conclusion: The results of our experiment point to visual and cognitive distraction potential caused by driver engagement with the co-pilot display. However, this distraction potential is not as severe as that of the reference task. More importantly, this study shows that the screen privacy filter and Bluetooth headset are effective in mitigating distraction potential while reducing the subjective interference from the co-pilot display on the driver to improve the driver experience. Innovation: To the best of the authors' knowledge, it was the first study that looked into the distraction potential, possible solutions, and driver experience of the co-pilot display. The suggested methods will enable us to develop a testing benchmark for measuring the visual and cognitive workload arising from driver engagement with the co-pilot display. Both testers and co-pilot display designers can adopt the techniques and findings of this study. Limitations of this study: The conclusions presented here are restricted to the co-pilot display of the current production vehicles. We only took the video task into consideration for co-pilot display engagement. Future studies need to be carried out in order to assess various forms of entertainment functions, like audio and in-car games.

Title: Cybersecurity standard alignment with SAE on hardware protected security environments Authors: Gil Bernabeu*, GlobalPlatform, France Francesca Forestieri, GlobalPlatform, Italy Keywords – automotive security, cybersecurity standards, interoperability Objective GlobalPlatform has launched an automotive initiative to foster direct engagement between trusted digital service experts from banking, government, mobile and the automotive ecosystem to optimize the efficient deployment of Secure Components, Trusted Digital Architecture, Security APIs, and Security Lifecycle Management within the Automotive sector. Methodology – Alignment with SAE and Automotive Requirements Through GlobalPlatform’s automotive initiative, we have established an automotive task force to align our technology/specifications with SAE and other automotive standards organizations. In addition to coordinated work within the GP membership, we have also established the Cybersecurity Vehicle Forum to work in consultation with the automotive task force to ensure engagement with the wider automotive ecosystem in defining the future of automotive cybersecurity standards. Until 2021, automotive cybersecurity standards were a mix of standards without clear responsibilities across the ecosystem. Since UNECE’s regulation 155 on Cybersecurity Management Systems and 156 on Software Updates, specific cybersecurity requirements have been established. Demonstrating compliance to these regulations for automotive cybersecurity is defined directly in: SAE/ISO 21434 Road vehicles - Cybersecurity engineering and ISO 24089 Road Vehicles - Software Update Engineering. Nevertheless, other automotive standards are necessary for addressing these strategic objectives: SAE • J3101 Hardware Protected Security for Ground Vehicles • J3323 Surface Vehicles Trust Anchors and Authentication Information Report • J3101-3 HPSE Management of Confidential Data • J3201 Guideline for Automotive Environment Cybersecurity Key Management and Credential Distribution ISO • Joint ISO/IEC JTC1/SC 27 - ISO/TC 22/SC 32 WG: Cybersecurity requirements and evaluation activities for connected vehicle devices • ISO/IEC 27001 and related standards Information security management • ISO/PAS 5112:2022 Guidelines for auditing cybersecurity engineering Results - Identification of Gaps in Specifications to Optimize Fit with Automotive Requirements GlobalPlatform is working in coordination with SAE on hardware-based security environments J3101 and we have analyzed the compatibility and differentiating features between varying specifications. Some areas require additional coordination: • Hardware protected security environment – how prescriptive is J3101? • What are the implications of certain choices? • What other use cases are supported by roots-of-trust technologies beyond the protected keystore? • How can an organization plan for flexibility of function knowing that changing requirements are coming from post-quantum and the evolution of market services? • Is the scope of trust anchors prescribed independent of the system wide security or should the scope of the trust anchor change based upon system wide security? What is New: Leveraging Hardware Protected Security Environments from Banking and Mobile to the Emerging Automotive Requirements As a not-for-profit member-driven standards organisation with over 20 years of experience in delivering specifications/certifications for secure digital services and devices for the Banking, Financial, Government and Mobile, GlobalPlatform has existing standards that can be leveraged for automotive security. (60 billion+ Secure Elements (SE) shipped worldwide based on GlobalPlatform specifications, 15 billion+ GlobalPlatform compliant Trusted Execution Environments (TEE) in market today.) GlobalPlatform defines how best to ensure trustworthiness with: • Root-of-Trust as the common thread allowing the trustworthiness of code and data loaded into a system at run-time to be established, so that eventually a larger system can be considered trustworthy. • Overall Device Trust Architecture allows manufacturers to protect critical assets (credential, applications) in Secure Components (either Secure Elements and/or Trusted Execution Environments) and to build chain of trust from the device to their backend systems. GlobalPlatform’s experience provides valuable understanding in addressing foundational security for automotive through Secure Components. Conclusion: Key Role of Interoperability The importance of interoperability is relevant for the full ecosystem, allowing for fostering differentiation while ensuring portability as well as assuring compliance to the most critical aspects: selected security levels and robustness to attacks. GlobalPlatform specifications support this interoperability which is a key differentiator from SAE’s standards. Although interoperability may not be appreciated by vendors with locked-in clients who are unable to change, a fully interoperable ecosystem will guarantee the vitality of the system (i.e., multiple providers, experts, add-on services, etc.). This vitality will result in greater innovation and optimization in fulfilling client requirements for services while allowing for mass market production and a reduction in costs.