## 4 Results
### User Study
#### 4.2.1 Regression Analysis
This means that the occupants are not able to foresee the steering operation based on visual perception of the corner, and, in contrast to the maximum longitudinal and lateral accelerations, which are indicated by a rather slow increase in acceleration, are not able to feel it build up. The steering change jerk and jerk end follow a steering onset and are therefore more predictable for the occupant. The lack of body tension resulting from \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Objective Value** & **R\({}^{2}\)** & **k** & **X\({}_{0}\)** & **n** & **Resulting Formula** \\ \hline Lateral acceleration & 0.5632 & 4626 & 1657 & 0.6204 & \(Y=1+4626\left(\frac{\mu}{m/s}-1657\right)^{0.6204}\) \\ Jerk onset & 0.7557 & 1600 & 1662 & 0.5820 & \(Y=1+1600\left(\frac{\mu}{m/s}-1662\right)^{0.5820}\) \\ Jerk switch & 0.7091 & 0.9408 & 4898 & 0.5606 & \(Y=1+0.9408\left(\frac{\mu}{m/s}-4898\right)\) \\ Jerk end & 0.5986 & 0.9197 & 0.521 & 0.7357 & \(Y=1+0.9197\left(\frac{\mu}{m/s}-0.521\right)^{0.7357}\) \\ Longitudinal acceleration & 0.6290 & 3035 & 1183 & 0.6430 & \(Y=1+3035\left(\frac{\mu}{m/s}-1183\right)^{0.6430}\) \\ Jerk on gas & 0.4834 & 2444 & 0.9568 & 0.4721 & \(Y=1+2444\left(\frac{\mu}{m/s}-0.9568\right)^{0.4721}\) \\ Jerk on brake & 0.4654 & 2078 & 1232 & 0.4401 & \(Y=1+2078\left(\frac{\mu}{m/s}-1232\right)^{0.4401}\) \\ Total acceleration & 0.6904 & 3859 & 1716 & 0.6436 & \(Y=1+3859\left(\frac{\mu}{m/s}-1716\right)^{0.6436}\) \\ Total Jerk & 0.7062 & 0.9371 & 4918 & 0.5488 & \(Y=1+0.9371\left(\frac{\mu}{m/s}-4918\right)^{0.5488}\) \\ Velocity & 0.5454 & 0.3600 & 21,64 & 0.8072 & \(Y=1+0.3600\left(\frac{\mu}{m/s}-21.64\right)^{0.8072}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results from the regression analysis for all objective values in Maneuver B.  
Figure 8: Regression analysis for the objective value jerk onset in Maneuver B.  
the poor predictability of the jerk onset leads to significant body movements, which the subject finds unpleasant. Subject 6 described this phenomenon with a tipping of the body under the influence of lateral dynamics. Low R\({}^{2}\) values were found in the two longitudinally dynamic characteristic values of starting jerk (R\({}^{2}\) = 0.4834) and stopping jerk (R\({}^{2}\) = 0.4654). This indicates a poor longitudinal dynamic differentiability within the maneuver. One possible explanation for this was that both the starting and stopping processes took place shortly before or after a curve. As a result, the starting and stopping process overlapped with the steering process. This made it difficult for the test persons to differentiate the longitudinal dynamics. Adapting the maneuver to this circumstance would solve the problem. In contrast to Maneuver A, the coefficients determined from the regression analysis do not show a clear pattern (Table 4). The coefficient n used in the regression model depends on the stimulus conditions and varies widely between different test persons [48]. Combined with the small number of test persons, a scattering is therefore legitimate. It is also noticeable that in contrast to Maneuver A, all relationships between subjective judgment and the magnitude of the measured value show a degressive growth, which can be explained by the different stimulus conditions within the two maneuvers [47]. The function of the relationship between objective size and subjective judgment is thus maneuver-specific. Analyzing the dependence between the subjective user comfort and the needed travel time in Maneuver B in Figure 9 allows for interpreting a Pareto front. Regarding this Pareto front, the driving style could be chosen as a more comfortable or faster drive. It is not possible to cross the Pareto front to drive a short travel time without any discomfort, which is illustrated by the blank lower-left corner.