Author:
Aleva Thomas K.,Tabone Wilbert,Dodou Dimitra,de Winter Joost C. F.
Abstract
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.
Funder
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
Reference66 articles.
1. External Human-Machine Interfaces: which of 729 colors is best for signaling ‘Please (do not) cross;Bazilinskyy,2020
2. How should external Human-Machine Interfaces behave? Examining the effects of colour, position, message, activation distance, vehicle yielding, and visual distraction among 1,434 participants;Bazilinskyy;Appl. Ergon.,2021
3. Do cyclists need HMIs in future automated traffic? An interview study;Berge;Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav.,2022
4. A review on classifications of tracking systems in augmented reality;Bhakar;J. Phys. Conf. Ser.,2022
5. Two-step communication for the interaction between automated vehicles and pedestrians;Bindschädel;Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav.,2022
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献