Study the Effect of eHMI Projection Distance and Contrast on People Acceptance in Blind-Spot Detection Scenario
Source abstract
Abstract
External human-machine interaction (eHMI) road projections are a new feature for automotive lighting to improve vehicle communication with other road users. These modalities are used to draw users’ attention and awareness to specific situations. However, such advanced capabilities are still being debated to be used on the road in the context of whether or not such road projections can provide a clear and understandable message to road users in a specific scenario or lead to anticipation and change in the driving behavior. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate human factors aspects, such as the feeling of safety, useability, understanding, acceptability, and driver behavior. This study investigates the change in distance and luminance contrast and its effect on human driving behavior and acceptability in blind spot detection scenarios on the highway. A lab experiment with 12 participants is performed to analyze: understanding, satisfaction, usability, visibility, safety, workload, and driving behavior towards eHMI projection while varying projecting distance and luminance contrast. Video recordings and a designed questionnaire were used during the whole process. Results show that ego vehicle drivers prefer a projection distance between 5 to 10 m. However, a distance of 5 m is preferred by overtaking vehicle drivers in terms of visibility and safety. Luminance contrasts have no significant effect on the symbol’s visibility in 5 m and 10 m projection distances. In contrast, participants in overtaking vehicles feel difficult to understand the situation for 15 m condition, which increases their overall workload significantly (p < 0.019). No significant effect is recorded in terms of change in driving behavior.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Human-Automation Interaction and Safety · Impact of Light on Environment and Health · Traffic and Road Safety
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Light Sources and Illuminating Engineering, School of Information Science and Technology, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
Academy for Engineering & Technology, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
References (58)
Show source-provided references
1. World Health Organization dedicates World Health Day to road safety10.1136/ip.2004.005405 ↗
2. (2022, January 08). Unfallatlas 2020. Available online: https://unfallatlas.statistikportal.de/.
3. (2022). The Highway Code, Department for Transport.
4. (2022, January 12). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Available online: https://www.nhtsa.gov/.
5. Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.003 ↗
6. Swedish Parliament (1997). Parliament Transport and Communication Committee Report 199798:TU4, Government Office of Sweden.
7. Lindberg, J., Strandroth, J., Ekman, L., Persson, S., and Malmström, T. (2016). Översyn av etappmål för säkerhet på väg till 2020 och 2030, med en utblick mot 2050. Trafikverket Borlänge. Publ., 109, Available online: https://trafikverket.ineko.se/se/%C3%B6versyn-av-etappm%C3%A5l-f%C3%B6r-s%C3%A4kerhet-p%C3%A5-v%C3%A4g-till-2020-och-2030-med-en-utblick-mot-2050.
8. Kristianssen, A.-C. (2022). Establishing Vision Zero in New York City—The Story of a Pioneer. The Vision Zero Handbook: Theory, Technology and Management for a Zero Casualty Policy, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-76505-7_20 ↗
9. The worldwide approach to Vision Zero: Implementing road safety strategies to eliminate traffic-related fatalities10.1007/s40719-017-0085-z ↗
10. Vision Zero: Evolution History and Developing Trend in Road Safety: A Scoping Review
11. Dey, D., Ackermans, S., Martens, M., Pfleging, B., and Terken, J. (2022). Interactions of Automated Vehicles with Road Users. User Experience Design in the Era of Automated Driving, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-77726-5_20 ↗
12. Stoma, M., Dudziak, A., Caban, J., and Droździel, P. (2021). The future of autonomous vehicles in the opinion of automotive market users. Energies, 14.10.3390/en14164777 ↗
13. Autonomous vehicles: Theoretical and practical challenges10.1016/j.trpro.2018.10.103 ↗
14. Lundgren, V.M., Habibovic, A., Andersson, J., Lagström, T., Nilsson, M., Sirkka, A., Fagerlönn, J., Fredriksson, R., Edgren, C., and Krupenia, S. (2017). Will there be new communication needs when introducing automated vehicles to the urban context?. Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-41682-3_41 ↗
15. Cooperation behaviour of road users in t-intersections during deadlock situations10.1016/j.trf.2018.07.006 ↗
16. Rasouli, A., Kotseruba, I., and Tsotsos, J.K. (2018, January 4–7). Towards social autonomous vehicles: Understanding pedestrian-driver interactions. Proceedings of the 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Maui, HI, USA.10.1109/ITSC.2018.8569324 ↗
17. Moore, D., Currano, R., Strack, G.E., and Sirkin, D. (2019, January 21–25). The case for implicit external human-machine interfaces for autonomous vehicles. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, New York, NY, USA.10.1145/3342197.3345320 ↗
18. Drivers′ communicative interactions: On-road observations and modelling for integration in future automation systems10.1080/00140139.2014.952349 ↗
19. Rettenmaier, M., Schulze, J., and Bengler, K. (2020). How much space is required? Effect of distance, content, and color on external Human–Machine Interface size. Information, 11.10.3390/info11070346 ↗
20. Faas, S.M., and Baumann, M. (2019, January 16–18). Yielding light signal evaluation for self-driving vehicle and pedestrian interaction. Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Systems Engineering and Design: Future Trends and Applications, Munich, Germany.10.1007/978-3-030-27928-8_29 ↗
21. Faas, S.M., and Baumann, M. (2019, January 28–30). Light-based external human machine interface: Color evaluation for self-driving vehicle and pedestrian interaction. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, USA.10.1177/1071181319631049 ↗
22. Rettenmaier, M., Pietsch, M., Schmidtler, J., and Bengler, K. (2019, January 9–12). Passing through the bottleneck-the potential of external human-machine interfaces. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Paris, France.10.1109/IVS.2019.8814082 ↗
23. Dietrich, A., Willrodt, J.-H., Wagner, K., and Bengler, K. (2019, January 5–7). Projection-based external human machine interfaces-enabling interaction between automated vehicles and pedestrians. Proceedings of the DSC 2018 Europe VR, Antibes, France.
24. Glück, T., Biermann, T., Wolf, A., Budig, S., Ziebehl, A., Knöchelmann, M., and Lachmayer, R. (2021). Distraction Potential of Vehicle-Based On-Road Projection. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app112412030 ↗
25. External HMI for self-driving vehicles: Which information shall be displayed?10.1016/j.trf.2019.12.009 ↗
26. Road user interactions in a shared space setting: Priority and communication in a UK car park10.1016/j.trf.2020.05.004 ↗
27. Morgan, P.L., Williams, C., Flower, J., Alford, C., and Parkin, J. (2018, January 22–26). Trust in an autonomously driven simulator and vehicle performing maneuvers at a T-junction with and without other vehicles. Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Orlando, FL, USA.10.1007/978-3-319-93885-1_33 ↗
28. 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 ↗
29. The Matter of How and When: Comparing Explicit and Implicit Communication Strategies of Automated Vehicles in Bottleneck Scenarios10.1109/OJITS.2021.3107678 ↗
30. Rosenhahn, E., and Link, F. (2019, January 23–25). Traffic Safety Benefits provided by High Resolution Headlamp Systems. Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Automotive Lightning-ISAL, Darmstadt, Germany.
31. Rizvi, S., Knöchelmann, M., Ley, P.-P., and Lachmayer, R. (2017). Survey of on-Road Image Projection with Pixel Light Systems, SPIE.
32. Azouigui, S., Saudrais, S., Barbedette, B., Bordel, S., Delauzun, S., Khatir, B., Neumann, C., Jahn, P., Balembois, F., and Jaillette, P. (2021). Road Projections: Impact on Road Users and Potential to Enhance Awareness of Backing Situation in Parking Lots, SAE. SAE Technical Paper.10.4271/2021-01-5078 ↗
33. (2022, May 15). Japan’s Concerns on ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRE/2020/4/Rev.1. Available online: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/GRE-84-36e.pdf.
34. Neumann, R. (2017, January 25–27). Challenges and opportunities with future headlamp performance requirements. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automotive Lighting, Darmstadt, Germany.
35. New Trends and Functionalities in Automotive Tail Lighting10.55549/epstem.1050167 ↗
36. Eye Glance Behavior of Van and Passenger Car Drivers During Lane Change Decision Phase10.1177/0361198105193700106 ↗
37. ‘You’re a bad driver but I just made a mistake’: Attribution differences between the ‘victims’ and ‘perpetrators’ of scenario-based aggressive driving incidents10.1016/j.trf.2011.01.001 ↗
38. Carroll, J.M. (2003). Making Use: Scenario-Based Design of Human-Computer Interactions, MIT Press.
39. Menzel, T., Bagschik, G., and Maurer, M. (2018, January 26–30). Scenarios for development, test and validation of automated vehicles. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Changshu, China.10.1109/IVS.2018.8500406 ↗
40. Amersbach, C., and Winner, H. (2019, January 27–30). Defining required and feasible test coverage for scenario-based validation of highly automated vehicles. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), Auckland, New Zealand.10.1109/ITSC.2019.8917534 ↗
41. How do drivers overtake cyclists?10.1016/j.aap.2015.12.008 ↗
42. Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers, Wiley-Blackwell.
43. Shah, A.H., and Lin, Y. (2022, January 12–14). A survey for on road external human machine interaction projection symbol. Proceedings of the 10th International Forum on Automotive Lighting, China (IFAL 2022), Shanghai, China.
44. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9 ↗
45. A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics10.1016/S0968-090X(96)00025-3 ↗
46. A personal resource for technology interaction: Development and validation of the affinity for technology interaction (ATI) scale10.1080/10447318.2018.1456150 ↗
47. Chinese system usability scale: Translation, revision, psychological measurement10.1080/10447318.2019.1700644 ↗
48. Road Safety Differences between Priority-Controlled Intersections and Right-Hand Priority Intersections: Behavioral Analysis of Vehicle–Vehicle Interactions10.3141/2365-06 ↗
49. Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability Engineering, Morgan Kaufmann.10.1016/B978-0-08-052029-2.50009-7 ↗
50. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology10.2307/41410412 ↗
51. An on-road study to investigate fatigue in local/short haul trucking10.1016/S0001-4575(01)00098-7 ↗
52. The impact of driver distraction on road safety: Results from a representative survey in two Australian states10.1136/ip.2006.012336 ↗
53. Boelhouwer, A., van den Beukel, A.P., van der Voort, M.C., Verwey, W.B., and Martens, M.H. (2020). Supporting Drivers of Partially Automated Cars through an Adaptive Digital In-Car Tutor. Information, 11.10.3390/info11040185 ↗
54. Harvey, C., and Stanton, N.A. (2013). Usability Evaluation for in-Vehicle Systems, CRC Press.
55. (2019). Transmitted by the Experts from The International Automotive Lighting and Light Signalling Expert Group (GTB) GRE-82-04 GTB Presentation to Support Informal Document, UNECE.
56. Intersection Design and Decision–Reaction Time for Older Drivers10.3141/1573-11 ↗
57. (2018). Speed Measuring Device Operator Training, NHTSA.
58. Influence of driver’s reaction time and gain on driver–vehicle system performance with rear wheel steering control systems: Part of a study on vehicle control suitable for the aged driver10.1016/S0389-4304(01)00175-8 ↗