Interactions of Automated Vehicles with Road Users

Dey, Debargha; Ackermans, Sander; Martens, Marieke; Pfleging, Bastian; Terken, Jacques

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-77726-5_20

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the same time, it can be argued that an instructive eHMI is unambiguous and safe to use if the AV can ascertain that it is indeed safe to cross at that moment, just like current (pedestrian) traffic lights are used. Researchers especially caution against text-based eHMIs, because text requires focused attention (Cefkin, 2018;Dey et al, 2022). However, an advantage of text-based eHMIs is that they can be understood directly (language barriers not considered), while non-textual eHMIs require training or experience (Bazilinskyy et al, 2019;De Clercq et al, 2019).…”

Section: Argument 2 Against Ehmis: There Is a Lack Of Standardization...mentioning

confidence: 99%

External human–machine interfaces: Gimmick or necessity?

Winter

Dodou²

2022

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Argument 2 Against Ehmis: There Is a Lack Of Standardization...mentioning

confidence: 99%

External human–machine interfaces: Gimmick or necessity?

Winter

Dodou²

2022

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Previous research has shown that with displays on the outside of the AV, called external human-machine interfaces or eHMIs, pedestrians can make more effective road-crossing decisions ( Dey et al, 2020 ; Bazilinskyy et al, 2021 ; Bindschädel et al, 2022 ). However, eHMIs have certain disadvantages in that they typically cannot address an individual pedestrian ( Colley et al, 2020 ; Tran et al, 2023 ) and that they can be difficult to perceive in some cases, for example, due to an occlusion by another object ( Troel-Madec et al, 2019 ; Dey et al, 2022 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Augmented reality for supporting the interaction between pedestrians and automated vehicles: an experimental outdoor study

Aleva,

Tabone,

Dodou

et al. 2024

Front. Robot. AI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Communication from automated vehicles (AVs) to pedestrians using augmented reality (AR) could positively contribute to traffic safety. However, previous AR research for pedestrians was mainly conducted through online questionnaires or experiments in virtual environments instead of real ones.Methods: In this study, 28 participants conducted trials outdoors with an approaching AV and were supported by four different AR interfaces. The AR experience was created by having participants wear a Varjo XR-3 headset with see-through functionality, with the AV and AR elements virtually overlaid onto the real environment. The AR interfaces were vehicle-locked (Planes on vehicle), world-locked (Fixed pedestrian lights, Virtual fence), or head-locked (Pedestrian lights HUD). Participants had to hold down a button when they felt it was safe to cross, and their opinions were obtained through rating scales, interviews, and a questionnaire.Results: The results showed that participants had a subjective preference for AR interfaces over no AR interface. Furthermore, the Pedestrian lights HUD was more effective than no AR interface in a statistically significant manner, as it led to participants more frequently keeping the button pressed. The Fixed pedestrian lights scored lower than the other interfaces, presumably due to low saliency and the fact that participants had to visually identify both this AR interface and the AV.Discussion: In conclusion, while users favour AR in AV-pedestrian interactions over no AR, its effectiveness depends on design factors like location, visibility, and visual attention demands. In conclusion, this work provides important insights into the use of AR outdoors. The findings illustrate that, in these circumstances, a clear and easily interpretable AR interface is of key importance.

show abstract

“…Focusing on pedestrians' willingness to cross, contrasting results exist for pedestrians' interaction with AVs. On the one hand, studies clearly showed that pedestrians were more willing to cross when the interacting AV communicated via eHMI compared to no eHMI (Böckle et al, 2017 ; Lundgren et al, 2017 ; Deb et al, 2018 ; Habibovic et al, 2018 ; Clercq et al, 2019 ; Dey et al, 2019 , 2022 ; Ackermans et al, 2020 ). On the other hand, Clamann et al ( 2017 ) conducted a field study and did not find any effect of an eHMI on pedestrians' willingness to cross compared to no eHMI.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a Holistic Communication Approach to an Automated Vehicle's Communication With Pedestrians: Combining Vehicle Kinematics With External Human-Machine Interfaces for Differently Sized Automated Vehicles

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Future automated vehicles (AVs) of different sizes will share the same space with other road users, e. g., pedestrians. For a safe interaction, successful communication needs to be ensured, in particular, with vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians. Two possible communication means exist for AVs: vehicle kinematics for implicit communication and external human-machine interfaces (eHMIs) for explicit communication. However, the exact interplay is not sufficiently studied yet for pedestrians' interactions with AVs. Additionally, very few other studies focused on the interplay of vehicle kinematics and eHMI for pedestrians' interaction with differently sized AVs, although the precise coordination is decisive to support the communication with pedestrians. Therefore, this study focused on how the interplay of vehicle kinematics and eHMI affects pedestrians' willingness to cross, trust and perceived safety for the interaction with two differently sized AVs (smaller AV vs. larger AV). In this experimental online study (N = 149), the participants interacted with the AVs in a shared space. Both AVs were equipped with a 360° LED light-band eHMI attached to the outer vehicle body. Three eHMI statuses (no eHMI, static eHMI, and dynamic eHMI) were displayed. The vehicle kinematics were varied at two levels (non-yielding vs. yielding). Moreover, “non-matching” conditions were included for both AVs in which the dynamic eHMI falsely communicated a yielding intent although the vehicle did not yield. Overall, results showed that pedestrians' willingness to cross was significantly higher for the smaller AV compared to the larger AV. Regarding the interplay of vehicle kinematics and eHMI, results indicated that a dynamic eHMI increased pedestrians' perceived safety when the vehicle yielded. When the vehicle did not yield, pedestrians' perceived safety still increased for the dynamic eHMI compared to the static eHMI and no eHMI. The findings of this study demonstrated possible negative effects of eHMIs when they did not match the vehicle kinematics. Further implications for a holistic communication strategy for differently sized AVs will be discussed.

show abstract

Interactions of Automated Vehicles with Road Users

Cited by 6 publications

References 76 publications

External human–machine interfaces: Gimmick or necessity?

External human–machine interfaces: Gimmick or necessity?

Augmented reality for supporting the interaction between pedestrians and automated vehicles: an experimental outdoor study

Toward a Holistic Communication Approach to an Automated Vehicle's Communication With Pedestrians: Combining Vehicle Kinematics With External Human-Machine Interfaces for Differently Sized Automated Vehicles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About