In the original article, there were five errors.
1. The word “only” was used instead of “mainly.”
A correction has been made to section External Human–Machine Interfaces Evaluated Via Empirical Studies, sub-section Studies Employing Physical Prototypes. The corrected sentence reads as follows:
“While the aforementioned studies have used mainly subjective measures to assess interface effectiveness, Clamann et al. (2017) evaluated a communication interface by using an objective measure, namely decision time, alongside ratings and interviews.”
2. The word “reaction” was used instead of “decision”.
A correction has been made to External Human–Machine Interfaces Evaluated Via Empirical Studies, sub-section VR-Based Studies. The corrected sentence reads as follows:
“All designs proved to be efficient, as evidenced by shorter decision times when compared to the baseline condition (autonomous vehicle without interface).”
3. The word “experimental” was used instead of “behavioral”.
A correction has been made to Discussion section. The corrected sentence reads as follows:
“Interestingly, the most convincing evidence were obtained largely from studies conducted in laboratory settings, namely monitor-based and VR-based studies, that utilized mainly objective measures, like reaction time, duration, and accuracy, in the context of behavioral tasks.”
Additionally, there was an error in Table 1 as published. The second-to-final version of Table 1 was included in the original article. The final version of the table appears below.
Table 1.
Empirical studies in the field of external human–machine interfaces for autonomous vehicle-to-pedestrian communication.
| Studies | Stimulus delivery | Interface parameters | Evaluation procedures | Measures | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical Prototype | Monitor-based | VR-based | Technology | Location | Content type | Information type | Message coding | Modality | Behavioral task | Online survey | Questionnaire | Objective | Subjective | |
| Hensch et al. (2019) | ✓ | Display | Roof | Information | Mode, intention | Lights | Visual | Intention identification | Comprehensibility, trust, safety, usefulness | Likert scales, interview | ||||
| Costa (2017) | ✓ | Cardboard, speaker | Hood, bumper | Advice | Textual, pictorial, sounds | Visual, auditory | Street-crossing | Frequency | ||||||
| Mahadevan et al. (2018) | ✓ | Light strip, display, LEDs, printed hand, mobile phone, speaker | Windshield, hood, roof, street surface, pedestrian's mobile phone | Information | Pedestrian acknowledgment, intention | Lights, speech, vibration,gesture, pictorial | Visual, auditory, haptic | Crossing intention | Effectiveness, confidence | Likert scales, interview | ||||
| Habibovic (2018) | ✓ | Light strip | Windshield | Information | Mode, intention | Lights | Visual | Street-crossing | Safety | Likert scales, interview | ||||
| Clamann et al. (2017) | ✓ | Display | Radiator grille | Information, advice | Speed | Textual, pictorial | Visual | Street-crossing | Effectiveness | Decision time | Interview | |||
| Li et al. (2018) | ✓ | Display | Windshield, radiator grille, vehicle sides | Advice | Lights | Visual | Situational urgency, crossing intention | Numeric scales, interview | ||||||
| Zhang et al. (2017) | ✓ | Light strip | Front doors, hood | Information | Intention | Lights | Visual | Intention identification, effectiveness | Interview | |||||
| Song et al. (2018) | ✓ | Display | Radiator grille | Advice | Textual, pictorial | Visual | Crossing intention, preference | Reaction time, frequency | Interview | |||||
| Fridman et al. (2017) | ✓ | Light strip, display, projection, vehicle lights and signals | Windshield, headlights, fog lights, directional signals, radiator grille, bumper, street surface | Information advice | Intention | Textual, pictorial, lights | Visual | Crossing intention | Error rates, reaction time | |||||
| Ackermann et al. (2019) | ✓ | Light strip, display, projection | Windshield, radiator grille, street surface | Information, advice | Mode | Lights, textual, pictorial | Visual | Comprehensibility, recognizability, ambiguousness, comfort | Numeric scales, interview | |||||
| Petzoldt et al. (2018) | ✓ | Light strip | Above license plate | Information | Deceleration | Lights | Visual | Deceleration detection | Usefulness, safety | Error rates, reaction time | Likert scales | |||
| Chang et al. (2018) | ✓ | Light strip, display, projection, rotating vehicle lights | Windshield, radiator grille, street surface, headlights | Information | Intention | Lights, textual, pictorial, anthropomorphism | Visual | Intention identification | Intelligibility | Error rates | Likert scales | |||
| Charisi et al. (2017) | ✓ | Display, light strip, projection, vehicle lights and signals | Windshield, headlights, directional signals, street surface | Information | Intention | Lights, textual, pictorial, anthropomorphism | Visual | Intention identification | Intention identification | Error rates | Interview | |||
| de Clercq et al. (2019) | ✓ | Display, vehicle lights and signals | Radiator grille, frontal brake lights | Information advice | Intention | Textual, lights, pictorial | Visual | Safety-reporting | Safety, preference | Duration | Interview | |||
| Hudson et al. (2018) | ✓ | Display, speaker | Hood | Advice | Textual, pictorial, speech, music | Visual, auditory | Street-crossing | Preference | Interview | |||||
| Deb et al. (2018) | ✓ | Display, speaker | Hood | Information advice | Intention | Lights, pictorial, speech, sounds, music | Visual, auditory | Street-crossing | Safety, acceptance | Decision time, duration | Likert scales, interview | |||
| Stadler et al. (2019) | ✓ | Display | Radiator grille | Advice | Lights, textual, pictorial | Visual | Street-crossing | Satisfaction | Error rates, decision time | Numeric scales, interview | ||||
| Othersen et al. (2018) | ✓ | Display | Radiator grille | Information | Pedestrian detection, intention | Lights, pictorial | Visual | Street-crossing | Effectiveness, understandability, perceptibility, safety, appeal | Decision time | Interview | |||
| Chang et al. (2017) | ✓ | Rotating vehicle lights | Headlights | Information | Pedestrian acknowledgment, intention | Anthropomorphism | Visual | Crossing intention | Effectiveness, safety | Error rates, reaction time | Likert scales, interview | |||
| Böckle et al. (2017) | ✓ | Light strip, speaker | Vehicle corners | Information | Intention | Lights, sounds | Visual, auditory | Street-crossing | Safety, comfort, effectiveness | Decision time | Likert scales, interview | |||
The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
References
- Ackermann C., Beggiato M., Schubert S., Krems J. F. (2019). An experimental study to investigate design and assessment criteria: what is important for communication between pedestrians and automated vehicles? Appl. Ergon. 75, 272–282. 10.1016/j.apergo.2018.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Böckle M. P., Brenden A. P., Klingegård M., Habibovic A., Bout M. (2017). SAV2P: exploring the impact of an interface for shared automated vehicles on pedestrians' experience, in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications Adjunct (New York, NY: ACM; ), 136–140. [Google Scholar]
- Chang C. M., Toda K., Igarashi T., Miyata M., Kobayashi Y. (2018). A video-based study comparing communication modalities between an autonomous car and a pedestrian, in Adjunct Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (New York, NY: ACM; ), 104–109. [Google Scholar]
- Chang C. M., Toda K., Sakamoto D., Igarashi T. (2017). Eyes on a car: an interface design for communication between an autonomous car and a pedestrian, in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (New York, NY: ACM; ), 65–73. [Google Scholar]
- Charisi V., Habibovic A., Andersson J., Li J., Evers V. (2017). Children's views on identification and intention communication of self-driving vehicles, in Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (New York, NY: ACM; ), 399–404. [Google Scholar]
- Clamann M., Aubert M., Cummings M. L. (2017). Evaluation of vehicle-to-pedestrian communication displays for autonomous vehicles, in Proceedings of the 96th Annual Transportation Research Board Meeting (Washington, DC: ). [Google Scholar]
- Costa G. (2017). Designing Framework for Human-Autonomous Vehicle Interaction. Master's thesis, Designing Framework for Human-Autonomous Vehicle Interaction, Minato. [Google Scholar]
- de Clercq K., Dietrich A., Núñez Velasco J. P., de Winter J., Happee R. (2019). External human-machine interfaces on automated vehicles: effects on pedestrian crossing decisions. Hum. Factors 61, 1353–1370. 10.1177/0018720819836343 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Deb S., Strawderman L. J., Carruth D. W. (2018). Investigating pedestrian suggestions for external features on fully autonomous vehicles: a virtual reality experiment. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 59, 135–149. 10.1016/j.trf.2018.08.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Fridman L., Mehler B., Xia L., Yang Y., Facusse L. Y., Reimer B. (2017). To walk or not to walk: crowdsourced assessment of external vehicle-to-pedestrian displays. arXiv [Preprint]. [Google Scholar]
- Habibovic A. (2018). Communicating intent of automated vehicles to pedestrians. Front. Psychol. 9:1336. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01336 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hensch A. C., Neumann I., Beggiato M., Halama J., Krems J. F. (2019). How should automated vehicles communicate? effects of a light-based communication approach in a wizard-of-oz study, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. (Cham: Springer; ), 79–91. 10.1007/978-3-030-20503-4_8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Hudson C. R., Deb S., Carruth D. W., McGinley J., Frey D. (2018). Pedestrian perception of autonomous vehicles with external interacting features, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. (Cham: Springer; ), 33–39. 10.1007/978-3-319-94334-3_5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Li Y., Dikmen M., Hussein T. G., Wang Y., Burns C. (2018). To cross or not to cross: urgency-based external warning displays on autonomous vehicles to improve pedestrian crossing safety, in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (New York, NY: ACM; ), 188–197. [Google Scholar]
- Mahadevan K., Somanath S., Sharlin E. (2018). Communicating awareness and intent in autonomous vehicle-pedestrian interaction, in Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY: ACM; ), 429. [Google Scholar]
- Othersen I., Conti-Kufner A., Dietrich A., Maruhn P., Bengler K. (2018). Designing for automated vehicle and pedestrian communication, in Proceedings of the Perspectives on eHMIs from Older and Younger Persons (Netherlands: HFES Europe Annual Meeting; ). [Google Scholar]
- Petzoldt T., Schleinitz K., Banse R. (2018). Potential safety effects of a frontal brake light for motor vehicles. IEEE Intell. Trans. Sys. 12, 449–453. 10.1049/iet-its.2017.0321 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Song Y. E., Lehsing C., Fuest T., Bengler K. (2018). External HMIs and their Effect on the Interaction Between Pedestrians and Automated Vehicles, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Human Systems Integration (Cham: Springer; ), 13–18. 10.1007/978-3-319-73888-8_3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Stadler S., Cornet H., Theoto T. N., Frenkler F. (2019). A tool, not a toy: using virtual reality to evaluate the communication between autonomous vehicles and pedestrians, in Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality, eds tom Dieck M., Jung T. (Cham: Springer; ), 203–216. 10.1007/978-3-030-06246-0_15 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- Zhang J., Vinkhuyzen E., Cefkin M. (2017). Evaluation of an autonomous vehicle external communication system concept: a survey study, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. (Cham: Springer; ), 650–661. 10.1007/978-3-319-60441-1_63 [DOI] [Google Scholar]