External Human–Machine Interfaces: The Effect of Display Location on Crossing Intentions and Eye Movements

Yke Bauke Eisma · Steven Bergen · S. M. ter Brake · M. T. T. Hensen · W. J. Tempelaar · Joost de Winter

122 citations0/0 files storedInformation

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Human-Automation Interaction and Safety Traffic and Road Safety Social Robot Interaction and HRI

Abstract

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 122 citations exist upstream.

References

2000Aging and measures of processing speed 2018Communicating Awareness and Intent in Autonomous Vehicle-Pedestrian Interaction 2019External Human-Machine Interfaces on Automated Vehicles: Effects on Pedestrian Crossing Decisions 2018Designing the interaction of automated vehicles with other traffic participants: design considerations based on human needs and expectations 1967THE ATTENTIONAL DEMAND OF AUTOMOBILE DRIVING 2018An experimental study to investigate design and assessment criteria: What is important for communication between pedestrians and automated vehicles?2019Survey on eHMI concepts: The effect of text, color, and perspective 2017Evaluation of Vehicle-to-Pedestrian Communication Displays for Autonomous Vehicles

Cited by

2020External Human–Machine Interfaces Can Be Misleading: An Examination of Trust Development and Misuse in a CAVE-Based Pedestrian Simulation Environment 2020After you?! – Use of external human-machine interfaces in road bottleneck scenarios 2019How Do eHMIs Affect Pedestrians’ Crossing Behavior? A Study Using a Head-Mounted Display Combined with a Motion Suit 2021How should external human-machine interfaces behave? Examining the effects of colour, position, message, activation distance, vehicle yielding, and visual distraction among 1,434 participants

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.