Comparing User Acceptance in Human–Machine Interfaces Assessments of Shared Autonomous Vehicles: A Standardized Test Procedure
Source abstract
Abstract
Human–Machine Interfaces (HMIs) in autonomous driving technology have recently gained significant research interest in public transportation. However, most of the studies are biased towards qualitative methods, while combining quantitative and qualitative approaches has yet to receive commensurate attention in measuring user acceptance of design outcome evaluation. To the best of our knowledge, no standardized test procedure that combines quantitative and qualitative methods has been formed to evaluate and compare the interrelationships between different designs of HMIs and their psychological effects on users. This paper proposes a practical and comprehensive protocol to guide assessments of user acceptance of HMI design solutions. We first defined user acceptance and analyzed the existing evaluation methods. Then, specific ergonomic factors and requirements that the designed output HMI should meet were identified. Based on this, we developed a protocol to evaluate a particular HMI solution from in- and out-of-vehicle perspectives. Our theoretical protocol combines objective and subjective measures to compare users’ behavior when interacting with Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) in a virtual experimental environment, especially in public transportation. Standardized testing procedures provide researchers and interaction designers with a practical framework and offer theoretical support for subsequent studies.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Human-Automation Interaction and Safety · Transportation and Mobility Innovations · Older Adults Driving Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Design, Politecnico di Milano, 20158 Milan, Italy
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, 20156 Milan, Italy
References (77)
Show source-provided references
1. Yan, M., Rampino, L., and Caruso, G. (2024). Fostering User Acceptance in Shared Autonomous Vehicles: A Framework for HMI Design. Multimodal Technol. Interact., 8.10.3390/mti8110094 ↗
2. Lim, H.S.M., and Taeihagh, A. (2018). Autonomous Vehicles for Smart and Sustainable Cities: An in-Depth Exploration of Privacy and Cybersecurity Implications. Energies, 11.10.3390/en11051062 ↗
3. Cooperative Control of Heterogeneous Connected Vehicle Platoons: An Adaptive Leader-Following Approach10.1109/LRA.2020.2966412 ↗
4. Yan, M., Lu, P., Arquilla, V., Brevi, F., Rampino, L., and Caruso, G. (2023). Systemic Design Strategies for Shaping the Future of Automated Shuttle Buses. Appl. Sci., 13.10.3390/app132111767 ↗
5. Shared Autonomous Vehicle Services: A Comprehensive Review10.1016/j.trc.2019.12.008 ↗
6. Woolridge, E., and Chan-Pensley, J. (2020). Measuring the User Comfort of Autonomous Vehicles, Human Drive.
7. Burns, C.G., Oliveira, L., Thomas, P., Iyer, S., and Birrell, S. (2019, January 9–12). Pedestrian Decision-Making Responses to External Human-Machine Interface Designs for Autonomous Vehicles. Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Paris, France.10.1109/IVS.2019.8814030 ↗
8. Yan, M., Geng, W., and Hui, P. (2023, January 25–29). Towards a 3D Evaluation Dataset for User Acceptance of Automated Shuttles. Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), Shanghai, China.10.1109/VRW58643.2023.00023 ↗
9. Ahangar, M.N., Ahmed, Q.Z., Khan, F.A., and Hafeez, M. (2021). A Survey of Autonomous Vehicles: Enabling Communication Technologies and Challenges. Sensors, 21.10.3390/s21030706 ↗
10. Smart Cities, Urban Mobility and Autonomous Vehicles: How Different Cities Needs Different Sustainable Investment Strategies10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121857 ↗
11. Schoettle, B., and Sivak, M. (2014). A Survey of Public Opinion about Autonomous and Self-Driving Vehicles in the US, UK and Australia. UMTRI Transp. Res. Inst., 1–38.10.1109/ICCVE.2014.7297637 ↗
12. Liu, X., He, P., Chen, W., and Gao, J. (2019). Improving Multi-Task Deep Neural Networks via Knowledge Distillation for Natural Language Understanding. arXiv.
13. When Are Transport Pricing Policies Fair and Acceptable?10.1007/s11211-011-0124-9 ↗
14. Psychological Roadblocks to the Adoption of Self-Driving Vehicles10.1038/s41562-017-0202-6 ↗
15. How to Increase Automated Vehicles’ Acceptance through In-Vehicle Interaction Design: A Review10.1080/10447318.2020.1860517 ↗
16. Acceptability Engineering: The Study of User Acceptance of Innovative Technologies10.1016/j.jart.2015.06.001 ↗
17. Bjørner, T. (2015, January 28–30). Aalborg Universitet A Priori User Acceptance and the Perceived Driving Pleasure in Semi-Autonomous and Autonomous Vehicles. Proceedings of the European Transport Conference 2015, Frankfurt, Germany.
18. Miglani, A., Diels, C., and Terken, J. (2016, January 24–26). Compatibility between Trust and Non—Driving Related Tasks in UI Design for Highly and Fully Automated Driving. Proceedings of the AutomotiveUI 2016—8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Adjunct Proceedings, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.10.1145/3004323.3004331 ↗
19. What Drives People to Accept Automated Vehicles? Findings from a Field Experiment10.1016/j.trc.2018.07.024 ↗
20. Fraedrich, E., Cyganski, R., Wolf, I., and Lenz, B. (2016). User Perspectives on Autonomous Driving, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
21. Factors of Acceptability, Acceptance and Usage for Non-Rail Autonomous Public Transport Vehicles: A Systematic Literature Review10.1016/j.trf.2021.06.008 ↗
22. A Review of Technology Acceptance and Adoption Models and Theories10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.137 ↗
23. Automated Vehicle Acceptance in China: Social Influence and Initial Trust Are Key Determinants10.1016/j.trc.2020.01.027 ↗
24. Factors Influencing Autonomous Vehicle Adoption: An Application of the Technology Acceptance Model and Innovation Diffusion Theory10.1080/09537325.2020.1826423 ↗
25. User Acceptance of Virtual Worlds10.1145/1314234.1314250 ↗
26. What Influences the Decision to Use Automated Public Transport? Using UTAUT to Understand Public Acceptance of Automated Road Transport Systems10.1016/j.trf.2017.07.007 ↗
27. User Acceptance of Internet of Vehicles Services: Empirical Findings of Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) and Fuzzy Sets Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA)
28. A Theoretical Investigation of User Acceptance of Autonomous Public Transport10.1007/s11116-021-10253-w ↗
29. Acceptance of Driverless Vehicles: Results from a Large Cross-National Questionnaire Study10.1155/2018/5382192 ↗
30. Nordhoff, S., Stapel, J., He, X., Gentner, A., and Happee, R. (2021). Perceived Safety and Trust in SAE Level 2 Partially Automated Cars: Results from an Online Questionnaire. PLoS ONE, 16.10.1371/journal.pone.0260953 ↗
31. Bornholt, J., and Heidt, M. (2019, January 15–18). Association for Information Systems Association for Information Systems.To Drive or Not to Drive-A Critical Review Regarding the Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles. Proceedings of the ICIS 2019 Proceedings (5), Munich, Germany.
32. How Trust Can Drive Forward the User Acceptance to the Technology? In-Vehicle Technology for Autonomous Vehicle10.1016/j.tra.2018.10.019 ↗
33. Vokrinek, J., Schaefer, M., and Pinotti, D. (2014, January 5–9). Multi-Agent Traffic Simulation for Human-in-the-Loop Cooperative Drive Systems Testing. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2014), Paris, France.
34. Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to Assess Automation10.1007/s10111-011-0194-3 ↗
35. Hewitt, C., Politis, I., Amanatidis, T., and Sarkar, A. (2019, January 17–20). Assessing Public Perception of Self-Driving Cars. Proceedings of the IUI’19: 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Marina del Ray, CA, USA.10.1145/3301275.3302268 ↗
36. A Multi-Level Model on Automated Vehicle Acceptance (MAVA): A Review-Based Study10.1080/1463922X.2019.1621406 ↗
37. Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use and User Acceptance of Blockchain Technology for Digital Transactions—Insights from User-Generated Content on Twitter10.1080/17517575.2019.1599446 ↗
38. Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Challenges and Recommendations of Literature Search in Information Systems Research
39. Johnsen, A. (2024, December 20). D2.1 Literature Review on the Acceptance and Road Safety, Ethical, Legal, Social and Economic Implications of Automated Vehicles Trafiksyn View Project Methods and Metrics for Assessing Societal Effects of Transport Automation View Project. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325786957_D21_Literature_review_on_the_acceptance_and_road_safety_ethical_legal_social_and_economic_implications_of_automated_vehicles.
40. Kruse, D. (2018). Consumer Acceptance of Shared Autonomous Vehicles. [Master’s Thesis, Copenhagen Business School].
41. Reig, S., Norman, S., Morales, C.G., Das, S., Steinfeld, A., and Forlizzi, J. (2018, January 23–25). A Field Study of Pedestrians and Autonomous Vehicles. Proceedings of the 10th International ACM Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, AutomotiveUI, Toronto, ON, Canada.10.1145/3239060.3239064 ↗
42. Foundation items: Shanghai Automotive Industry Technology Development Fund (1717)
43. The Roles of Initial Trust and Perceived Risk in Public’s Acceptance of Automated Vehicles10.1016/j.trc.2018.11.018 ↗
44. How the Older Population Perceives Self-Driving Vehicles10.1016/j.trf.2019.08.002 ↗
45. The Social Perspective on Policy towards Local Shared Autonomous Vehicle Services (LSAVS)10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.05.013 ↗
46. Golbabaei, F., Yigitcanlar, T., Paz, A., and Bunker, J. (2020). Individual Predictors of Autonomous Vehicle Public Acceptance and Intention to Use: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex., 6.10.3390/joitmc6040106 ↗
47. A Simple Procedure for the Assessment of Acceptance of Advanced Transport Telematics10.1016/S0968-090X(96)00025-3 ↗
48. Seeing Things: Consumer Response to the Visual Domain in Product Design10.1016/j.destud.2004.03.001 ↗
49. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology10.2307/249008 ↗
50. An Exploration of Primary School Students’ Perceived Learning Practices and Associated Self-Efficacies Regarding Mobile-Assisted Seamless Science Learning10.1080/09500693.2019.1693081 ↗
51. Attitudes towards Privately-Owned and Shared Autonomous Vehicles10.1016/j.trf.2020.05.014 ↗
52. Public Acceptance of Fully Automated Driving: Effects of Social Trust and Risk/Benefit Perceptions10.1111/risa.13143 ↗
53. Towards User Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles: A Virtual Reality Study on Human-Machine Interfaces10.1504/IJTMKT.2019.104601 ↗
54. Bischoff, S., Ulrich, C., Dangelmaier, M., Widlroither, H., and Diederichs, F. (2017, January 28–29). Emotion Recognition in User-Centered Design for Automotive Interior and Automated Driving. Proceedings of the Stuttgarter Symposium für Produktentwicklung (SSP 2017), Stuttgart, Germany.
55. New ISO Standards for Usability, Usability Reports and Usability Measures10.1007/978-3-319-39510-4_25 ↗
56. User Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles: Review and Perspectives on the Role of the Human-Machine Interfaces
57. Defining Interactions: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Interactive Behaviour in Human and Automated Road Traffic10.1080/1463922X.2020.1736686 ↗
58. Kaß, C., Schoch, S., Naujoks, F., Hergeth, S., Keinath, A., and Neukum, A. (2020). Standardized Test Procedure for External Human–Machine Interfaces of Automated Vehicles. Information, 11.10.3390/info11030173 ↗
59. Yan, M., Lin, Z., Lu, P., Wang, M., Rampino, L., and Caruso, G. (2023). Speculative Exploration on Future Sustainable Human-Machine Interface Design in Automated Shuttle Buses. Sustainability, 15.10.3390/su15065497 ↗
60. Taming the eHMI Jungle: A Classification Taxonomy to Guide, Compare, and Assess the Design Principles of Automated Vehicles’ External Human-Machine Interfaces
61. Stanton, N.A. (2018). Taxonomy of Traffic Situations for the Interaction between Automated Vehicles and Human Road Users. Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-60441-1 ↗
62. Factors Influencing the Acceptance of Robo-Taxi Services in China: An Extended Technology Acceptance Model Analysis10.1155/2022/8461212 ↗
63. Deriving Personas to Inform HMI Design for Future Autonomous Taxis: A Case Study on User Requirement Elicitation
64. The Role of Shared Autonomous Vehicle Systems in Delivering Smart Urban Mobility: A Systematic Review of the Literature10.1080/15568318.2020.1798571 ↗
65. Implications of Human-Machine Interface for Inclusive Shared Autonomous Vehicles
66. Ranasinghe, C., Holländer, K., Currano, R., Sirkin, D., Moore, D., Schneegass, S., and Ju, W. (2020, January 25–30). Autonomous Vehicle-Pedestrian Interaction across Cultures: Towards Designing Better External Human Machine Interfaces (eHMIs). Proceedings of the CHI EA’20: Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA.10.1145/3334480.3382957 ↗
67. Yielding Light Signal Evaluation for Self-Driving Vehicle and Pedestrian Interaction10.1007/978-3-030-27928-8_29 ↗
68. Using Virtual Reality to Assess User Experience10.1177/0018720812465006 ↗
69. Test Procedure for Evaluating the Human–Machine Interface of Vehicles with Automated Driving Systems10.1080/15389588.2019.1603374 ↗
70. Human Machine Interface Design for Continuous Support of Mode Awareness during Automated Driving: An Online Simulation10.1016/j.trf.2022.03.020 ↗
71. Experience Prototyping through Virtual Reality Head-Mounted Displays: Design Appraisals of Automotive User Interfaces
72. A Study on Haptic Actuators to Improve the User Experience of Automotive Touchscreen Interfaces
73. Measuring Usability with the USE Questionnaire
74. User Acceptance of Automated Shuttles in Berlin-Schöneberg: A Questionnaire Study10.1016/j.trf.2018.06.024 ↗
75. Is Tomorrow’s Car Appealing Today? Ethical Issues and User Attitudes beyond Automation10.1007/s00146-020-00941-z ↗
76. Aylward, K., Weber, R., Man, Y., Lundh, M., and Mackinnon, S.N. (2020). “Are You Planning to Follow Your Route?” The Effect of Route Exchange on Decision Making, Trust, and Safety. J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 8.10.3390/jmse8040280 ↗
77. Merat, N., Ruth, M., and Nordhoff, S. (2024, December 20). Human Factors, User Requirements, and User Acceptance of Ride-Sharing in Automated Vehicles. Available online: https://www.itf-oecd.org/human-factors-user-requirements-and-user-acceptance-ride-sharing-automated-vehicles.