CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14Interactive and Immersive DisplaysHand Gesture Recognition SystemsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

User Experience of In-Vehicle Gesture Interaction: Exploring the Effect of Autonomy and Competence in a Mock-Up Experiment

Stiegemeier, Dina, Bringeland, Sabrina, Kraus, Johannes, Baumann, Martin·2022·Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications
DOI 10.1145/3543174.3546847
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

To interact with the increasing number of infotainment systems today, touchless gestures are gaining popularity. But only if the interaction is adapted to human needs, the proposed benefits will come into effect. A three-way (2 x 2 x 2) mixed design was adopted examining basic psychological needs and their association with motivation, UX, and the acceptance of gestures. Thereby, the influence of freedom in the gesture execution, visual cues, and motivation framing was investigated. In this study, 27 participants experienced gesture interaction with infotainment content in an experiment with a realistic car mock-up. Results suggest that participants perceived higher autonomy interacting with free gestures and higher competence for the supportive visualization with visual cues. Autonomy, competence, and system relatedness affected the motivation, UX, and acceptance. The present study provides novel insights into the acceptance of in-vehicle gesture interaction and implications for future design of automotive user interfaces.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3543174.3546847

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Previous studies assessing Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction in user experience design, automotive user interface design, or chatbot interaction have used individually adapted versions of existing scales.

    “Previous studies assessing BPN Satisfaction in broader user experience design contexts (e.g., Hassenzahl et al., 2010;Karapanos et al., 2015;Lallemand et al., 2014;Partala & Kallinen, 2012;Tuch et al., 2013), automotive user interface design (Stiegemeier et al., 2022), or during chatbot interaction (e.g., De Vreede et al., 2021;Jiménez-Barreto et al., 2021;Moradbakhti et al., 2022) have used”

    From Development and Validation of a Basic Psychological Needs Scale for Technology Use (2024) · cites this paper as Stiegemeier et al., 2022

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stiegemeier, D., Bringeland, S., Kraus, J., & Baumann, M.
Affiliations
  • Universität Ulm (DE)
  • Robert Bosch (Germany) (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-09-17
Pages
285-296
DOI
10.1145/3543174.3546847
OpenAlex
W4296306273
Cited by
14
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3
FWCI
2.32
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Hand Gesture Recognition Systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
infotainment systems, user experience, basic psychological needs, autonomy, competence, motivation, visual cues, automotive user interfaces

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