Comparing State-of-the-Art and Emerging Augmented Reality Interfaces for Autonomous Vehicle-to-Pedestrian Communication

Providing pedestrians and other vulnerable road users with a clear indication about a fully autonomous vehicle status and intentions is crucial to make them coexist. In the last few years, a variety of external interfaces have been proposed, leveraging different paradigms and technologies including vehicle-mounted devices (like LED panels), short-range on-road projections, and road infrastructure interfaces (e.g., special asphalts with embedded displays). These designs were experimented in different settings, using mockups, specially prepared vehicles, or virtual environments, with heterogeneous evaluation metrics. Promising interfaces based on Augmented Reality (AR) have been proposed too, but their usability and effectiveness have not been tested yet. This paper aims to complement such body of literature by presenting a comparison of state-of-the-art interfaces and new designs under common conditions. To this aim, an immersive Virtual Reality-based simulation was developed, recreating a well-known scenario represented by pedestrians crossing in urban environments under non-regulated conditions. A user study was then performed to investigate the various dimensions of vehicle-to-pedestrian interaction leveraging objective and subjective metrics. Even though no interface clearly stood out over all the considered dimensions, one of the AR designs achieved state-of-the-art results in terms of safety and trust, at the cost of higher cognitive effort and lower intuitiveness compared to LED panels showing anthropomorphic features. Together with rankings on the various dimensions, indications about advantages and drawbacks of the various alternatives that emerged from this study could provide important information for next developments in the field.

[1]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[2]  Stanislas Dehaene,et al.  The neural basis of the Weber–Fechner law: a logarithmic mental number line , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  Nei Kato,et al.  Relay by Smart Device: Innovative Communications for Efficient Information Sharing Among Vehicles and Pedestrians , 2015, IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine.

[4]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Distinction Bias: Misprediction and Mischoice Due to Joint Evaluation , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  Jörg Rothe,et al.  Bucklin Voting is Broadly Resistant to Control , 2010, ArXiv.

[6]  Paolo Montuschi,et al.  Building Trust in Autonomous Vehicles: Role of Virtual Reality Driving Simulators in HMI Design , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology.

[7]  Nei Kato,et al.  A Mobility Analytical Framework for Big Mobile Data in Densely Populated Area , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology.

[8]  R S Kalawsky,et al.  VRUSE--a computerised diagnostic tool: for usability evaluation of virtual/synthetic environment systems. , 1999, Applied ergonomics.

[9]  Robert S. Kennedy,et al.  Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. , 1993 .

[10]  Mark R. Lehto,et al.  Foundations for an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Automated Systems , 2000 .

[11]  Ashish Kapoor,et al.  AirSim: High-Fidelity Visual and Physical Simulation for Autonomous Vehicles , 2017, FSR.

[12]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Understanding the Messages Conveyed by Automated Vehicles , 2019, AutomotiveUI.

[13]  Takeo Igarashi,et al.  Eyes on a Car: an Interface Design for Communication between an Autonomous Car and a Pedestrian , 2017, AutomotiveUI.

[14]  Josef F. Krems,et al.  Gap Acceptance and Time-To-Arrival Estimates as Basis for Informal Communication between Pedestrians and Vehicles , 2017, AutomotiveUI.

[15]  Daniel W. Carruth,et al.  Investigating pedestrian suggestions for external features on fully autonomous vehicles: A virtual reality experiment , 2018, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.

[16]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  Autonomous Vehicles That Interact With Pedestrians: A Survey of Theory and Practice , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[17]  Girish Chowdhary,et al.  Intent Communication between Autonomous Vehicles and Pedestrians , 2017, ArXiv.

[18]  Sowmya Somanath,et al.  Communicating Awareness and Intent in Autonomous Vehicle-Pedestrian Interaction , 2018, CHI.

[19]  Yahui Wang,et al.  To Cross or Not to Cross: Urgency-Based External Warning Displays on Autonomous Vehicles to Improve Pedestrian Crossing Safety , 2018, AutomotiveUI.

[20]  Susanne Boll,et al.  VRoad: gesture-based interaction between pedestrians and automated vehicles in virtual reality , 2019, AutomotiveUI.

[21]  Peter Thomas,et al.  Pedestrian Decision-Making Responses to External Human-Machine Interface Designs for Autonomous Vehicles , 2019, 2019 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

[22]  Thomas W. Schubert The sense of presence in virtual environments: A three-component scale measuring spatial presence, involvement, and realness , 2003, Z. für Medienpsychologie.

[23]  Riender Happee,et al.  External Human-Machine Interfaces on Automated Vehicles: Effects on Pedestrian Crossing Decisions , 2019, Hum. Factors.

[24]  G. Johansson,et al.  Drivers' Brake Reaction Times , 1971, Human factors.

[25]  Volker Gruhn,et al.  Don't panic!: guiding pedestrians in autonomous traffic with augmented reality , 2018, MobileHCI Adjunct.

[26]  Nei Kato,et al.  Networking and Communications in Autonomous Driving: A Survey , 2019, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[27]  Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles , 2022 .

[28]  Martin Schrepp,et al.  Design and Evaluation of a Short Version of the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ-S) , 2017, Int. J. Interact. Multim. Artif. Intell..

[29]  Shinya Kitayama,et al.  Display System for Vehicle to Pedestrian Communication , 2017 .

[30]  Martin Tomitsch,et al.  Designing for Projection-based Communication between Autonomous Vehicles and Pedestrians , 2019, AutomotiveUI.

[31]  Nei Kato,et al.  Automobile Driver Fingerprinting: A New Machine Learning Based Authentication Scheme , 2020, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics.

[32]  Gianluca Paravati,et al.  Mixed Reality-Based User Interaction Feedback for a Hand-Controlled Interface Targeted to Robot Teleoperation , 2017, AVR.

[33]  Tobias Lagström,et al.  AVIP - Autonomous vehicles' interaction with pedestrians - An investigation of pedestrian-driver communication and development of a vehicle external interface , 2016 .

[34]  Valentina Gatteschi,et al.  An Evaluation Testbed for Locomotion in Virtual Reality , 2020, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[35]  Azra Habibovic,et al.  SAV2P: Exploring the Impact of an Interface for Shared Automated Vehicles on Pedestrians' Experience , 2017, AutomotiveUI.

[36]  Rikard Fredriksson,et al.  Communicating Intent of Automated Vehicles to Pedestrians , 2018, Front. Psychol..

[37]  Andreas Riener,et al.  How Should Automated Vehicles Interact with Pedestrians?: A Comparative Analysis of Interaction Concepts in Virtual Reality , 2019, AutomotiveUI.

[38]  Philipp Wintersberger,et al.  A Novel Approach for Researching Crossing Behavior and Risk Acceptance: The Pedestrian Simulator , 2016, AutomotiveUI.

[39]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[40]  Marcelo H. Ang,et al.  Pedestrian Notification Methods in Autonomous Vehicles for Multi-Class Mobility-on-Demand Service , 2016, HAI.

[41]  Ananthan K. Pillai,et al.  Virtual Reality based Study to Analyse Pedestrian attitude towards Autonomous Vehicles , 2017 .