Skip to main content

A Tool, not a Toy: Using Virtual Reality to Evaluate the Communication Between Autonomous Vehicles and Pedestrians

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality

Part of the book series: Progress in IS ((PROIS))

Abstract

Although the main market for Virtual Reality (VR) is currently the gaming industry, advantages of using virtual environments in research and development have been already demonstrated e.g. for car industry or urban planning. Especially when no prototype is feasible or available, VR constitutes an advantageous alternative since it allows tests in laboratory conditions with high flexibility and ensured safety for test participants. In the presented study, it is investigated how VR can be used as a tool for Usability Tests to evaluate Human Machine Interfaces (HMI) for communication between autonomous vehicles and pedestrians. Singapore with its regulations and requirements has been selected as reference. Beyond the findings that explicit HMI concepts improve the communication between autonomous vehicles and pedestrians, VR was validated as suitable tool to conduct Usability Tests. Further studies plan to integrate additional case studies as well as improved immersion of test participants within the virtual environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    In contrast to level 0 automation, which means the human driver has to perform all aspects of the driving task, level 5 automation means that humans do not overtake or influence any task in any driving situation, but act solely as passengers (SAE International, 2016).

  2. 2.

    For the investigation of communication between AVs and human road users, a geographical context is required. Singapore has been selected for this study. Its local regulations and cultural environment will be considered as requirements.

References

  • Benderius, O., Berger, C., and Lundgren, V. M., (2017). The best Rated Human-Machine Interface Design for Autonomous Vehicles in 2016 Grand Cooperative Driving Challenge. IEEE Transactions on intelligent transportation systems, 19(4), 1302–1307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, L. P., & Vance, J. M. (2017). Industry use of virtual reality in product design and manufacturing: A survey. Virtual Reality, 21(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-016-0293-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clamann, M., Aubert, M., & Cummings, M. L., (2017). Evaluation of vehicle-to-pedestrian communication displays for autonomous vehicles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deb, S., Carruth, D. W., Sween, R., Strawderman, L., & Garrison, T. M. (2017). Efficacy of virtual reality in pedestrian safety research. Applied Ergonomics, 65, 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.03.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eng, H. (2017). Embracing the future of land transportation: Valuing flexibility in design and technology options for autonomous vehicles developments in Singapore. (Master thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuest, T., Sorokin, L., Bellem, H., & Bengler, K. (2017). Taxonomy of traffic situations for the interaction between automated vehicles and human road users. In International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (pp. 708–719). Springer, Cham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land Transport Authority. (2017). Speed limits. Retrieved from https://www.onemotoring.com.sg/content/onemotoring/en/on_the_roads/road_safety/speed_limits.html.

  • Loomis, J. M., & Blascovish, J. J. (1999). Immersive virtual environment technology as a basic research tool in psychology. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(4), 557–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M., & Chowdary, G. (2017). Intent communication between autonomous vehicles and pedestrians. Arxiv preprint arXiv:1708.07123.

  • Mercedes, (2015). Der Mercedes-Benz F 015 Luxury in Motion. Retrieved from https://www.mercedes-benz.com (22.02.2018).

  • Mihelj, M., Novak, D., & BeguÅ¡, S. (2014). Virtual reality technology and applications. Dodrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nissan, (2015). Nissan IDS Concept: Nissan’s vision for the future of EVs and autonomous driving. Retrieved from http://www.nissan-global.com (22.02.2018).

  • Oxford Dictionary. (2018). Definition of usability in English. Retrieved from: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/usability (07.02.2018).

  • Pillai, A., (2017). Virtual reality based study to analyse pedestrian attitude towards autonomous vehicles. Aalto University–School of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, J., & Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effective tests. 2nd edition, Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAE International. (2016). Taxonomy and definitions of terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. Retrieved from www.sae.org (21.08.2017).

  • Schmidt, S., & Farber, B. (2009). Pedestrians at the kerb: Recognising the action intentions of humans. Transportation Research part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12(4), 300–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneemann, F., & Gohl, I. (2016). Analyzing driver-pedestrian interaction at crosswalks: a contribution to autonomous vehicle in urban environments. In Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV)—IEEE (pp. 38–43).

    Google Scholar 

  • Å ucha, M. (2014). Road users’ strategies and communication: Driver-pedestrian interaction. In Transport Research Arena, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • The New York Times. (2016). Inside the self-driving Tesla fatal accident. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/01/business/inside-tesla-accident.html (23.08.2017).

  • Theoto, T., (2018). Human-machine interface design for pedestrians and autonomous vehicles (Unpublished master’s thesis). Technical University of Munich, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Bijl-Brouwer, M., (2012). Exploring usability—Design for dynamic and diverse use situations, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Stadler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Stadler, S., Cornet, H., Novaes Theoto, T., Frenkler, F. (2019). A Tool, not a Toy: Using Virtual Reality to Evaluate the Communication Between Autonomous Vehicles and Pedestrians. In: tom Dieck, M., Jung, T. (eds) Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06246-0_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics