Operationalizing Dyadic Urban Traffic Interaction Studies: From Theory to Practice
Source abstract
Abstract
Realistically modeling interactions between road users—like those between drivers or between drivers and pedestrians—within experimental settings come with pragmatic challenges. Due to practical constraints, research typically focuses on a limited subset of potential scenarios, raising questions about the scalability and generalizability of findings about interactions to untested scenarios. Here, we aim to tackle this by laying the methodological groundwork for defining representative scenarios for dyadic (two-actor) interactions that can be analyzed individually. This paper introduces a conceptual guide for operationalizing controlled dyadic traffic interaction studies, developed through extensive interdisciplinary brainstorming to bridge theoretical models and practical experimental design. It elucidates critical trade-offs in scenario selection, interaction approaches, measurement strategies, and timing coordination, thereby enhancing reproducibility and clarity for future traffic interaction research and streamlining the design process. The methodologies and insights we provide aim to enhance the accessibility and quality of traffic interaction research, offering a guide that aids researchers in setting up studies and ensures clarity and reproducibility in reporting, bridging the gap between theoretical traffic interaction models and practical applications in controlled experiments, thereby contributing to advancements in human factors research on traffic management and safety.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Transportation Planning and Optimization
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5612 AP Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Department of Information Science, Cornell Tech, New York, NY 10044, USA
SCANIA CV AB, 417 56 Göteborg, Sweden
Funding
National Science Foundation under award
References (77)
Show source-provided references
1. Brown, B., and Laurier, E. (2017, January 6–11). The trouble with autopilots: Assisted and autonomous driving on the social road. Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA.10.1145/3025453.3025462 ↗
2. Designing the interaction of automated vehicles with other traffic participants: Design considerations based on human needs and expectations10.1007/s10111-018-0521-z ↗
3. Pedestrians, Autonomous Vehicles, and Cities10.1177/0739456X16675674 ↗
4. Brooks, R. (2017). The Big Problem With Self-Driving Cars Is People. IEEE Spectrum, 27, Available online: https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-big-problem-with-selfdriving-cars-is-people.
5. Autonomous vehicles that interact with pedestrians: A survey of theory and practice10.1109/TITS.2019.2901817 ↗
6. Alambeigi, H., McDonald, A.D., and Tankasala, S.R. (2020, January 12–16). Crash Themes in Automated Vehicles: A Topic Modeling Analysis of the California Department of Motor Vehicles Automated Vehicle Crash Database. Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board, 99th Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA.
7. Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.003 ↗
8. Public Views towards Implementation of Automated Vehicles in Urban Areas10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.232 ↗
9. Autonomous Shared Mobility-On-Demand: Melbourne Pilot Simulation Study10.1016/j.trpro.2017.03.035 ↗
10. Defining interactions: A conceptual framework for understanding interactive behaviour in human and automated road traffic10.1080/1463922X.2020.1736686 ↗
11. Deshmukh, A., Wang, Z., Guo, H., Ammar, D., Sherony, R., Feng, F., Lin, B., Bao, S., and Zhou, F. (2023, January 23–27). A Systematic Review of Challenging Scenarios Involving Automated Vehicles and Vulnerable Road Users. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA.10.1177/21695067231192300 ↗
12. Juhlin, O. (1999, January 8–12). Traffic behaviour as social interaction-implications for the design of artificial drivers. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS), Toronto, ON, Canada.
13. The impersonal flâneur: Navigation styles of social agents in urban traffic10.1177/1206331202005002008 ↗
14. Normark, D. (2006). Enacting Mobility. Studies into the Nature of Road-Related Social Interaction. [Ph.D. Thesis, Götesborgs Universitet].
15. Šucha, M. (2014). Road users’ strategies and communication: Driver-pedestrian interaction. Transp. Res. Arena TRA, Available online: https://www.ictct.net/wp-content/uploads/26-Maribor-2013/26-Sucha-Full-paper-2.pdf.
16. Dey, D., and Terken, J. (2017, January 24–27). Pedestrian interaction with vehicles: Roles of explicit and implicit communication. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Oldenburg, Germany.10.1145/3122986.3123009 ↗
17. Designing Motion: Lessons for Self-driving and Robotic Motion from Human Traffic Interaction
18. Tending to mobility: Intensities of staying at the petrol station10.1068/a37280 ↗
19. Developing socially acceptable autonomous vehicles
20. Driving and Symbolic Interaction 110.1111/j.1475-682X.1977.tb00776.x ↗
21. The social accident: A theoretical model and a research agenda for studying the influence of social and cultural characteristics on motor vehicle accidents10.1016/j.aap.2006.12.015 ↗
22. Dingus, T.A., Klauer, S.G., Neale, V.L., Petersen, A., Lee, S.E., Sudweeks, J., Perez, M.A., Hankey, J., Ramsey, D., and Gupta, S. (2006). The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, Phase II-Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment, Technical Report.10.1037/e624282011-001 ↗
23. Hankey, J.M., Perez, M.A., and McClafferty, J.A. (2016). Description of the SHRP 2 Naturalistic Database and the Crash, Near-Crash, and Baseline Data Sets, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. Technical Report.
24. Creaser, J., Morris, N., Edwards, C., Manser, M., Cooper, J., Swanson, B., and Donath, M. (2015). Teen Driver Support System (TDSS) Field Operational Test, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota. Technical Report.
25. Fridman, L., Brown, D.E., Glazer, M., Angell, W., Dodd, S., Jenik, B., Terwilliger, J., Kindelsberger, J., Ding, L., and Seaman, S. (2017). MIT Autonomous Vehicle Technology Study: Large-Scale Deep Learning Based Analysis of Driver Behavior and Interaction with Automation. arXiv.
26. What came before the crash? An investigation through SHRP2 NDS data10.1016/j.ssci.2019.03.010 ↗
27. The impacts of heavy rain on speed and headway behaviors: An investigation using the SHRP2 naturalistic driving study data10.1016/j.trc.2018.04.012 ↗
28. Data and its (dis) contents: A survey of dataset development and use in machine learning research10.1016/j.patter.2021.100336 ↗
29. MIT advanced vehicle technology study: Large-scale naturalistic driving study of driver behavior and interaction with automation10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2926040 ↗
30. Interdependence in Vehicle-Pedestrian Encounters and Its Implications for Vehicle Automation10.1109/TITS.2020.3041562 ↗
31. Bargende, M., Reuss, H.C., and Wiedemann, J. (2018). Simulation in development and testing of autonomous vehicles. 18. Internationales Stuttgarter Symposium, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.10.1007/978-3-658-21194-3 ↗
32. Understanding and using context10.1007/s007790170019 ↗
33. Burns, C.G., Oliveira, L., Hung, V., Thomas, P., and Birrell, S. (2019). Pedestrian Attitudes to Shared-Space Interactions with Autonomous Vehicles—A Virtual Reality Study. Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-20503-4_29 ↗
34. Holländer, K., Colley, A., Mai, C., Häkkilä, J., Alt, F., and Pfleging, B. (2019, January 1–4). Investigating the Influence of External Car Displays on Pedestrians’ Crossing Behavior in Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the MobileHCI ’19: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, Taipei, Taiwan.10.1145/3338286.3340138 ↗
35. Li, Y., Dikmen, M., Hussein, T.G., Wang, Y., and Burns, C. (2018, January 23–25). To cross or not to cross: Urgency-based external warning displays on autonomous vehicles to improve pedestrian crossing safety. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Toronto, ON, Canada.10.1145/3239060.3239082 ↗
36. Mahadevan, K., Somanath, S., and Sharlin, E. (2018, January 21–26). Communicating awareness and intent in autonomous vehicle-pedestrian interaction. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada.10.1145/3173574.3174003 ↗
37. 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, Utrecht, The Netherlands.10.1145/3342197.3345320 ↗
38. Behavioural accident avoidance science: Understanding response in collision incipient conditions10.1080/0014013031000136386 ↗
39. Mühlbacher, D., Zimmer, J., Fischer, F., and Krüger, H.P. (2012, January 6–7). The multi-driver simulator—A new concept of driving simulation for the analysis of interactions between several drivers. Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference 2012, Paris, France.
40. Benefits and challenges of multi-driver simulator studies10.1049/iet-its.2014.0210 ↗
41. Heesen, M., Baumann, M., Kelsch, J., Nause, D., and Friedrich, M. (2012, January 10). Investigation of cooperative driving behaviour during lane change in a multi-driver simulation environment. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) Europe Chapter Conference Touluse, Toulouse, France.
42. Rittger, L., Muehlbacher, D., Maag, C., and Kiesel, A. (2015, January 14–16). Anger and bother experience when driving with a traffic light assistant: A multi-driver simulator study. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Europe, Groningen, The Netherlands.
43. Strangers in a Strange Land: New Experimental System for Understanding Driving Culture using VR10.1109/TVT.2022.3152611 ↗
44. Bazilinskyy, P., Kooijman, L., Dodou, D., and De Winter, J.C.F. (2020, January 9–11). Coupled simulator for research on the interaction between pedestrians and (automated) vehicles. Proceedings of the 19th Driving Simulation Conference (DSC), Antibes, France. Available online: https://repository.tudelft.nl/record/uuid:e14ae256-318d-4889-adba-b0ba1efcca71.
45. Bazilinskyy, P., Kooijman, L., Dodou, D., Mallant, K.P., Roosens, V.E., Middelweerd, M.D., Overbeek, L.D., and De Winter, J.C. (2022, January 17–20). Get Out of The Way! Examining eHMIs in Critical Driver-Pedestrian Encounters in a Coupled Simulator. Proceedings of the Main Proceedings—14th International ACM Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Seoul, Republic of Korea. AutomotiveUI 2022.10.1145/3543174.3546849 ↗
46. Stopping by looking: A driver-pedestrian interaction study in a coupled simulator using head-mounted displays with eye-tracking10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103825 ↗
47. External communication of automated vehicles in mixed traffic: Addressing the right human interaction partner in multi-agent simulation10.1016/j.trf.2022.04.017 ↗
48. Who goes first? A distributed simulator study of vehicle–pedestrian interaction10.1016/j.aap.2023.107050 ↗
49. Kearney, J.K., Noyce, D.A., Santiago-Chaparro, K.R., Chakraborty, S., and Jiang, Y. (2018). Multi-Modal Distributed Simulation Combining Cars, Bicyclists, and Pedestrians, Safety Research Using Simulation (SAFER-SIM) University Transportation Center. Technical Report.
50. Design and analysis of semi-controlled studies10.1016/j.trf.2016.06.016 ↗
51. 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 ↗
52. Road user behavior: Describing, inferring, predicting and beyond
53. Looked-but-failed-to-see-errors in traffic10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00095-7 ↗
54. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9 ↗
55. Measuring Emotion: The Self-Assessment Semantic Differential Manikin and the10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9 ↗
56. Endsley, M.R. (2000). Direct Measurement of Situation Awareness: Validity and Use of SAGAT. Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.10.1201/b12461 ↗
57. Sirkin, D., Martelaro, N., Johns, M., and Ju, W. (2017, January 6–11). Toward Measurement of Situation Awareness in Autonomous Vehicles. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA.10.1145/3025453.3025822 ↗
58. Situation Awareness as a Predictor of Performance for En Route Air Traffic Controllers10.2514/atcq.6.1.1 ↗
59. Auto- and allo-confrontation as tools for reflective activities10.1016/j.apergo.2004.06.003 ↗
60. Porter, B.E. (2011). Chapter 5—Naturalistic Observational Field Techniques for Traffic Psychology Research. Handbook of Traffic Psychology, Academic Press.
61. Analyzing Factors Influencing Pedestrian Behavior in Urban Traffic Scenarios Using Deep Learning10.1016/j.trpro.2023.11.637 ↗
62. Analysis of Road-User Interaction by Extraction of Driver Behavior Features Using Deep Learning10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2965940 ↗
63. Interact or counteract? Behavioural observation of interactions between vulnerable road users and autonomous shuttles in Oslo, Norway10.55329/fbhr3456 ↗
64. A comparison of pedestrian behavior in interactions with autonomous and human-driven vehicles: An extreme value theory approach10.1016/j.trf.2023.10.006 ↗
65. A cross-cultural analysis of driving styles for future autonomous vehicles
66. Li, J., Currano, R., Sirkin, D., Goedicke, D., Tennent, H., Levine, A., Evers, V., and Ju, W. (2020, January 23–26). On-Road and Online Studies to Investigate Beliefs and Behaviors of Netherlands, US and Mexico Pedestrians Encountering Hidden-Driver Vehicles. Proceedings of the HRI ’20: ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Cambridge, UK.10.1145/3319502.3374790 ↗
67. 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 Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA.10.1145/3334480.3382957 ↗
68. Longitudinal Effects of External Communication of Automated Vehicles in the USA and Germany: A Comparative Study in Virtual Reality and Via a Browser
69. Klein, N.A., Sandhaus, H., Goedicke, D., Parush, A., and Ju, W. (2024, January 22–25). Modeling Social Situation Awareness in Driving Interactions. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Stanford, CA, USA.10.1145/3640792.3675717 ↗
70. Comparing implicit communication via longitudinal driving dynamics: A cross-cultural study in Germany and the UK10.1016/j.trf.2024.03.008 ↗
71. A cross-cultural analysis of driving behavior under critical situations: A driving simulator study10.1016/j.trf.2019.02.007 ↗
72. Multi-methods Research to Examine External HMI for Highly Automated Vehicles
73. The Critical Incident Technique: Method or Methodology?10.1177/1049732318813112 ↗
74. Driver behavior in car-to-pedestrian incidents: An application of the Driving Reliability and Error Analysis Method (DREAM)10.1016/j.aap.2012.05.034 ↗
75. Multi-Criteria Analysis10.1016/bs.atpp.2020.07.001 ↗
76. Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods and Concepts10.3390/encyclopedia3010006 ↗
77. Research contributions in human-computer interaction10.1145/2907069 ↗