CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9Human-Automation Interaction and SafetySocial Robot Interaction and HRIUsability and User Interface Design

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Needs and Expectations for Fully Autonomous Vehicle Interfaces

Open access
Amanatidis, Theocharis, Langdon, Patrick, Clarkson, P. John·2018·Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
DOI 10.1145/3173386.3177054
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Fully autonomous vehicles provide an opportunity to improve current transportation solutions; both for drivers and for people unable to drive. In this paper we present the preliminary results of a study aiming to understand user needs and expectations for autonomous vehicle interfaces. We found that users expect a different type of information to be fed back to them depending on whether the vehicles are privately owned or shared. The results of this study will be confirmed by further work and contribute to the development of a baseline fully autonomous vehicle user interface.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3173386.3177054

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Users have different expectations for autonomous vehicle user interface depending on whether the vehicle is owned or shared.

    “Amanatidis et al. (2018) conclude that users have different expectations for autonomous vehicle user interface, based on whether the vehicle is owned or shared.”

    From Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review (2020) · cites this paper as Amanatidis et al. (2018)

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Amanatidis, T. et al. 2017. Toward an "Equal-Footing" Human-Robot Interaction for Fully Autonomous Vehicles. Advances in Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems (Jul. 2017), 313--319.
  2. 10.1109/5254.941364 · DOI
  3. 10.5555/2208018 · DOI
  4. 10.1145/3004323.3004348 · DOI
  5. 10.1109/MIS.2001.1183338 · DOI
  6. 10.1145/2667239.2667282 · DOI
  7. Ritchie, J. et al. 2013. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. SAGE.
  8. 10.5555/2601679 · DOI
  9. Tscheligi, M. et al. 2014. Toward 2020: Human Interaction with Autonomous Vehicles.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Amanatidis, T., Langdon, P., & Clarkson, P. J.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
Publisher
ACM
Published
2018-03
Pages
51-52
DOI
10.1145/3173386.3177054
OpenAlex
W2793309479
Cited by
9
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.24
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
  • ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) (publishedVersion)
  • Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo
Funders
Jaguar Land Rover
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
fully automated vehicles, human-machine interaction, user needs, user expectations, information feedback, shared autonomous vehicles

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review