In pioneering work, Senders (1983) tasked five participants to watch a bank of six dials, and found that glance rates and times glanced at dials increase linearly as a function of the frequency bandwidth of the dial's pointer. Senders did not record the angle of the pointers synchronously with eye movements, and so could not assess participants' visual sampling behavior in regard to the pointer state. Because the study of Senders has been influential but never repeated, we replicated and extended it by assessing the relationship between visual sampling and pointer state, using modern eye-tracking equipment. Eye tracking was performed with 86 participants who watched seven 90-second videos, each video showing six dials with moving pointers. Participants had to press the spacebar when any of the six pointers crossed a threshold. Our results showed a close resemblance to Senders' original results. Additionally, we found that participants did not behave in accordance with a periodic sampling model, but rather were conditional samplers, in that the probability of looking at a dial was contingent on pointer angle and velocity. Finally, we found that participants sampled more in agreement with Nyquist sampling when the high bandwidth dials were placed in the middle of the bank rather than at its outer edges. We observed results consistent with the saliency, effort, expectancy, and value model and conclude that human sampling of multidegree of freedom systems should not only be modeled in terms of bandwidth but also in terms of saliency and effort.

The topic of situation awareness has received continuing interest over the last decades. Freeze-probe methods, such as the Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT), are commonly employed for measuring situation awareness. The aim of this paper was to review validity issues of the SAGAT and examine whether eye movements are a promising alternative for measuring situation awareness. First, we outlined six problems of freeze-probe methods, such as the fact that freeze-probe methods rely on what the operator has been able to remember and then explicitly recall. We propose an operationalization of situation awareness based on the eye movements of the person in relation to their task environment to circumvent shortfalls of memory mediation and task interruption. Next, we analyzed experimental data in which participants (N = 86) were tasked to observe a display of six dials for about 10 min, and press the space bar if a dial pointer crossed a threshold value. Every 90 s, the screen was blanked and participants had to report the state of the dials on a paper sheet. We assessed correlations of participants' task performance (% of threshold crossing detected) with visual sampling scores (% of dials glanced at during threshold crossings) and freeze-probe scores. Results showed that the visual-sampling score correlated with task performance at the threshold-crossing level (r = 0.31) and at the individual level (r = 0.78). Freeze-probe scores were low and showed weak associations with task performance. We conclude that the outlined limitations of the SAGAT impede measurement of situation awareness, which can be computed more effectively from eye movement measurements in relation to the state of the task environment. The present findings have practical value, as advances in eye-tracking cameras and ubiquitous computing lessen the need for interruptive tests such as SAGAT. Eye-based situation awareness is a predictor of performance, with the advantage that it is applicable through real-time feedback technologies.

In the future, automated cars may feature external human–machine interfaces (eHMIs) to communicate relevant information to other road users. However, it is currently unknown where on the car the eHMI should be placed. In this study, 61 participants each viewed 36 animations of cars with eHMIs on either the roof, windscreen, grill, above the wheels, or a projection on the road. The eHMI showed ‘Waiting’ combined with a walking symbol 1.2 s before the car started to slow down, or ‘Driving’ while the car continued driving. Participants had to press and hold the spacebar when they felt it safe to cross. Results showed that, averaged over the period when the car approached and slowed down, the roof, windscreen, and grill eHMIs yielded the best performance (i.e., the highest spacebar press time). The projection and wheels eHMIs scored relatively poorly, yet still better than no eHMI. The wheels eHMI received a relatively high percentage of spacebar presses when the car appeared from a corner, a situation in which the roof, windscreen, and grill eHMIs were out of view. Eye-tracking analyses showed that the projection yielded dispersed eye movements, as participants scanned back and forth between the projection and the car. It is concluded that eHMIs should be presented on multiple sides of the car. A projection on the road is visually effortful for pedestrians, as it causes them to divide their attention between the projection and the car itself.

Objective To investigate pedestrians’ misuse of an automated vehicle (AV) equipped with an external human–machine interface (eHMI). Misuse occurs when a pedestrian enters the road because of uncritically following the eHMI’s message. Background Human factors research indicates that automation misuse is a concern. However, there is no consensus regarding misuse of eHMIs. Methods Sixty participants each experienced 50 crossing trials in a Cave Automatic Virtual Environment (CAVE) simulator. The three independent variables were as follows: (1) behavior of the approaching AV (within-subject: yielding at 33 or 43 m distance, no yielding), (2) eHMI presence (within-subject: eHMI on upon yielding, off), and (3) eHMI onset timing (between-subjects: eHMI turned on 1 s before or 1 s after the vehicle started to decelerate). Two failure trials were included where the eHMI turned on, yet the AV did not yield. Dependent measures were the moment of entering the road and perceived risk, comprehension, and trust. Results Trust was higher with eHMI than without, and the −1 Group crossed earlier than the +1 Group. In the failure trials, perceived risk increased to high levels, whereas trust and comprehension decreased. Thirty-five percent of the participants in the −1 and +1 Groups walked onto the road when the eHMI failed for the first time, but there were no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion eHMIs that provide anticipatory information stimulate early crossing. eHMIs may cause people to over-rely on the eHMI and under-rely on the vehicle-intrinsic cues. Application eHMI have adverse consequences, and education of eHMI capability is required.

No abstract