Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Considering Pedestrian Perceived Risk and Living Area in Studying the Effect of eHMI in Automated Vehicle and Pedestrian Interaction

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Mechanical Design (ICMD 2021)

Part of the book series: Mechanisms and Machine Science ((Mechan. Machine Science,volume 111))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In AV (automated vehicle) and pedestrian interaction studies, a plethora of researchers have focused on studying how the interaction design (both implicit and explicit) influences pedestrian behaviors (e.g., Dey et al. in Communicating the intention of an automated vehicle to pedestrians: the contributions of eHMI and vehicle behavior, 2020 [1]; de Clercq et al. in Hum Factors 61(8):1353–1370, 2019 [2]). Even though a few studies look at response differences in different pedestrian segments, such as considering gender, education, and age, few works examine the differences across individuals who have different risk perceptions, and who live in different areas. This study preliminarily explores if and how the effect of an AV’s eHMI (external Human–machine Interface) varies across individuals that have different perceived risk levels and living areas through an online study. The results show that eHMI had a larger effect, in terms of increased trust in an AV, on individuals who perceived the scenario risk as low compared to the effect on individuals who perceived it as medium or high. The effect on crossing decisions was diminished for participants when their perceived risk went higher. In addition, the presence of an eHMI had a smaller influence on individuals that live in cities than those living in suburban or rural areas. The results indicate that the effect of an eHMI is limited when the condition itself is perceived as high risk and when the target audiences are mainly people in cities who typically experience high-density traffic. More appropriate communication might be needed in this case, such as standard traffic signals, or a secondary communication cue that confirms the AV’s yielding intent. The overall findings indicate the necessity to consider pedestrians’ perceptions such as risk and living area when implementing eHMIs for the purpose of enhanced AV-pedestrian interaction experience.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 349.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Dey, D., Matviienko, A., et al.: Communicating the intention of an automated vehicle to pedestrians: the contributions of EHMI and vehicle behavior (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  2. de Clercq, K., Dietrich, A., Núñez Velasco, J.P., de Winter, J., Happee, R.: External human-machine interfaces on automated vehicles: effects on pedestrian crossing decisions. Hum. Factors 61(8), 1353–1370 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Self-driving cars: the next revolution. [Online]. Available: https://institutes.kpmg.us/manufacturing-institute/articles/2017/self-driving-cars-the-next-revolution.html. Accessed: 7/3/2021

  4. Habibovic, A., Englund, C., Wedlin, J.: Current gaps, challenges and opportunities in the field of road vehicle automation (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Vinkhuyzen, E., Cefkin, M.: Developing socially acceptable autonomous vehicles (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Farber, B.: Communication and communication problems between autonomous vehicles and human drivers. In: Autonomous Driving Technical, Legal and Social Aspects, pp. 1–706 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Guéguen, N., Jacob, C.: Direct look versus evasive glance and compliance with a request. J. Soc. Psychol. 142(3), 393–396 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Guéguen, N., Meineri, S., Eyssartier, C.: A pedestrian’s stare and drivers’ stopping behavior: a field experiment at the pedestrian crossing. Saf. Sci. 75, 87–89 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rasouli, A., Kotseruba, I., Tsotsos, J.K.: Agreeing to cross: how drivers and pedestrians communicate. In: IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium. Proceedings (IV), pp. 264–269 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ackermann, C., Beggiato, M., Bluhm, L.-F., Krems, J.: Vehicle movement and its potential as implicit communication signal for pedestrians and automated vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 6th Humanist Conference (June), pp. 1–7 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ackermann, C., Beggiato, M., Bluhm, L.F., Löw, A., Krems, J.F.: Deceleration parameters and their applicability as informal communication signal between pedestrians and automated vehicles. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 62, 757–768 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Beggiato, M., Witzlack, C., Springer, S., Krems, J.: The right moment for braking as informal communication signal between automated vehicles and pedestrians in crossing situations. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 597, 1072–1081 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dey, D., Terken, J.: Pedestrian interaction with vehicles: roles of explicit and implicit communication (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Burns, C.G., Oliveira, L., Hung, V., Thomas, P., Birrell, S.: Pedestrian Attitudes to Shared-Space Interactions with Autonomous Vehicles—A Virtual Reality Study. Springer International Publishing (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bazilinskyy, P., Dodou, D., de Winter, J.: Survey on EHMI concepts: the effect of text, color, and perspective. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 67, 175–194 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Guo, H., Zhao, F., et al.: Modeling the perception and preferences of pedestrians on crossing facilities (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ackermann, C., Beggiato, M., Schubert, S., Krems, J.F.: An experimental study to investigate design and assessment criteria: what is important for communication between pedestrians and automated vehicles? Appl. Ergon. 75(March 2018), 272–282 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Moore, D., Currano, R., Ella Strack, G., Sirkin, D.: The case for implicit external human-machine interfaces for autonomous vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, AutomotiveUI’19 Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, pp. 295–307 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Monzel, M., Keidel, K., et al.: A field study investigating road safety effects of a front brake light (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  20. She, J., Neuhoff, J., Yuan, Q.: Shaping pedestrians’ trust in autonomous vehicles: an effect of communication style, speed information, and adaptive strategy. J. Mech. Des. Trans. ASME 143(9) (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  21. She, J., Islam, M., Zhou, F.: The effect of dynamic speed information and timing of displaying EHMI on automated vehicle and pedestrian interactions. In: ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conference, 17–20 Aug, Virtual (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Colley, M., Walch, M., Gugenheimer, J., Askari, A., Rukzio, E.: Towards inclusive external communication of autonomous vehicles for pedestrians with vision impairments. In: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Proceedings, pp. 1–14 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kumaar, J.S., Creech, C., Tilbury, D.M., Yang, X.J., Pradhan, A.K., Tsui, K.M., Robert, L.P.: Pedestrian trust in automated vehicles: role of traffic signal and AV driving behavior. Front. Robot. AI 6(Nov) (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dey, D., Habibovic, A., Löcken, A., Wintersberger, P., Pfleging, B., Riener, A., Martens, M., Terken, J.: Taming the EHMI jungle: a classification taxonomy to guide, compare, and assess the design principles of automated vehicles’ external human-machine interfaces. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 7 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bazilinskyy, P., Kooijman, L., Dodou, D., de Winter, J.C.F.: How should external human-machine interfaces behave? Examining the effects of colour, position, message, activation distance, vehicle yielding, and visual distraction among 1,434 participants. Appl. Ergon. 95(Mar), 103450 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rasouli, A., Tsotsos, J.K.: Autonomous vehicles that interact with pedestrians: a survey of theory and practice, pp. 225–260 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nordhoff, S., Kyriakidis, M., et al.: A multi-level model on automated vehicle acceptance (MAVA): a review-based study (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  28. The Campbell Institute: Risk Perception: Theories, Strategies, and Next Steps, pp. 1–10 (2016). Accessed 7/3/2021. https://www.thecampbellinstitute.org/risk-perception-theories-strategies-and-next-steps/.

  29. Ha, T., Kim, S., Seo, D., Lee, S.: Effects of explanation types and perceived risk on trust in autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 73, 271–280 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang, T., Tao, D., Qu, X., Zhang, X., Lin, R., Zhang, W.: The roles of initial trust and perceived risk in public’s acceptance of automated vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 98(Dec 2018), pp. 207–220 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Arezes, P.M., Miguel, A.S.: Risk perception and safety behaviour: a study in an occupational environment. Saf. Sci. 46(6), 900–907 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lee, C., Ward, C., Raue, M., D’Ambrosio, L., Coughlin, J.F.: Age differences in acceptance of self-driving cars: a survey of perceptions and attitudes. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including Subseries: Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 10297 LNCS, pp. 3–13 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Liu, Y.C., Tung, Y.C.: Risk analysis of pedestrians’ road-crossing decisions: effects of age, time gap, time of day, and vehicle speed. Saf. Sci. 63, 77–82 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rasouli, A., Kotseruba, I., Tsotsos, J.K.: Understanding pedestrian behavior in complex traffic scenes. IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh. 3(1), 61–70 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Fildes, B.N., Ihsen, E.: Age differences in road crossing decisions based on gap judgements. Annu. Proc. Assoc. Adv. Automot. Med. 43, 279–300 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hulse, L.M., Xie, H., Galea, E.R.: Perceptions of autonomous vehicles : relationships with road users, risk, gender and age. Saf. Sci. 102(Aug 2017), pp. 1–13 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Holland, C., Hill, R.: The effect of age, gender and driver status on pedestrians’ intentions to cross the road in risky situations. Accid. Anal. Prev. 39(2), 224–237 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Moore, R.L.: Pedestrian choice and judgment. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 4(1), 3–10 (1953)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Yagil, D.: Beliefs, motives and situational factors related to pedestrians’ self-reported behavior at signal-controlled crossings. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 3(1), 1–13 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Merat, N., Louw, T., Madigan, R., Wilbrink, M., Schieben, A.: What externally presented information do VRUs require when interacting with fully automated road transport systems in shared space? Accid. Anal. Prev. 118(Oct 2016), pp. 244–252 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Deb, S., Strawderman, L., Carruth, D.W., DuBien, J., Smith, B., Garrison, T.M.: Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess pedestrian receptivity toward fully autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 84, 178–195 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Jing, P., Xu, G., et al.: The determinants behind the acceptance of autonomous vehicles: a systematic review (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P.É., Savalei, V.: When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? 37(5), 139–146 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  44. McHugh, M.L.: Multiple comparison analysis testing in ANOVA. Biochem. Medica 21(3), 203–209 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the CFR grants from Miami University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Miami University, Oxford, OH, 45056, USA

    Jinjuan She, Marufa Islam & Megan Fanok

Authors
  1. Jinjuan She
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marufa Islam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Megan Fanok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jinjuan She .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

    Jianrong Tan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

She, J., Islam, M., Fanok, M. (2022). Considering Pedestrian Perceived Risk and Living Area in Studying the Effect of eHMI in Automated Vehicle and Pedestrian Interaction. In: Tan, J. (eds) Advances in Mechanical Design. ICMD 2021. Mechanisms and Machine Science, vol 111. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7381-8_62

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7381-8_62

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-7380-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-7381-8

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation