Understanding the Messages Conveyed by Automated Vehicles

Lee, Yee Mun; Madigan, Ruth; García, Juan de Dios; Tomlinson, Andrew; Solernou, Albert; Romano, Richard; Markkula, Gustav; Uttley, Jim

doi:10.1145/3342197.3344546

Cited by 46 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of course, visibility of eHMI is perhaps not the only factor to explain this phenomenon, since the SPLB was perceived around 27.5 m away, yet did not prompt as many crossings. A previous study (Lee et al, 2019c), showed FH to be ranked significantly higher than SPLB for conveying the message 'I am giving way', and, at least in the west (Honest, 2004), this cue is associated with such a communication message. Although the UK Highway Code,…”

Section: Percentage Of Crossingsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Table 2 shows the range of behaviours and eHMI combinations experienced by the two groups. (Lee et al, 2019c). Therefore, these two messages were chosen for further investigation in the current study, to understand the effect of context and actual crossing behaviour, on the perception and comprehension of each signal.…”

Section: Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Auditory cues, involving pure tones or spoken word have also been used (e.g. Deb et al, 2018, Lee et al, 2019c. However, it is not currently clear what particular aspects of such eHMI are most successful for communicating the range of messages required from an AV when it is interacting with other road users.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ackermann et al, 2019b;Deb et al, 2018;Otherson et al, 2018), computer-screen based tasks (e.g. Ackermann et al, 2019b;Fridman et al, 2017;Bazilinskyy et al, 2019;Lee et al, 2019c;Dey et al, 2020a), field tests, real-world experiments (e.g. Clamann et al, 2017;Matthews et al, 2017;Habibovic et al, 2018;Faas & Baumann, 2019;Hensch et al, 2019), and various forms of pedestrian simulator studies (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of the success of different eHMIs for conveying the correct message, results are mixed, with some studies showing the same response by pedestrians to a range of very different looking/sounding eHMIs (e.g. Deb et al, 2018;de Clercq et al, 2019;Kooijman et al, 2019), and others suggesting that one eHMI can be perceived as portraying two very different, and contradictory, messages (Lee et al 2019c).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Learning to interpret novel eHMI: The effect of vehicle kinematics and eHMI familiarity on pedestrians' crossing behaviour

Lee¹,

Madigan²,

Uzondu³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In current urban traffic, pedestrians attempting to cross the road at un-signalised locations are thought to mostly use implicit communication, such as deceleration cues, to interpret a vehicle’s intention to yield. There is less reliance on explicit driver- or vehicle-based messages, such as hand/head movements, or flashing lights/beeping horns. With the impending deployment of Automated Vehicles (AV), especially those at SAE Level 4 and 5, where the driver is no longer in control of the vehicle, there has been a surge in interest in the value of new forms of communication for AVs, for example, via different types of external Human Machine Interfaces (eHMIs). However, there is still much to be understood about how quickly a novel eHMI affects pedestrian crossing decisions, and whether it provides any additional aid, above and beyond implicit/kinematic information from the vehicle. The aim of this between-participant study, funded by the H2020 interACT project, was to investigate how the combination of kinematic information from a vehicle (e.g. Speed and Deceleration), and eHMI designs, play a role in assisting the crossing decision of pedestrians in a cave-based pedestrian simulator. Using an existing, well-recognised, message for yielding (Flashing Headlights - FH) as a benchmark, this study also investigated how quickly a novel eHMI (Slow Pulsing Light Band – SPLB) was learned. To investigate the effect of eHMI visibility on crossing decisions, the distance at which each eHMI was perceivable was also measured. Results showed that, compared to SPLB, the FH led to earlier crossings during vehicle deceleration, especially at lower approaching speeds, and smaller time gaps. However, although FH was visible earlier than SPLB, this visibility does not appear to be the only reason for earlier crossings, with message familiarity thought to play a role. Participants were found to learn the meaning conveyed by FH relatively quickly, crossing around 1 second earlier in its presence (compared to the no eHMI condition), across the three blocks of trials. On the other hand, it took participants at least one block of 12 trials for the new SPLB signal to affect crossing, which only accelerated crossing initiations by around 200ms, compared to the no eHMI condition. The role of comprehension, long-term exposure, and familiarity of novel messages in this context is therefore important, if AVs are to provide safe, trustworthy communication messages, which will enhance traffic flow and efficiency.

show abstract

Section: Percentage Of Crossingsmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%