The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Communicating Intent of Automated Vehicles to Pedestrians
Open accessAbstract
While traffic signals, signs, and road markings provide explicit guidelines for those operating in and around the roadways, some decisions, such as determinations of "who will go first," are made by implicit negotiations between road users. In such situations, pedestrians are today often dependent on cues in drivers' behavior such as eye contact, postures, and gestures. With the introduction of more automated functions and the transfer of control from the driver to the vehicle, pedestrians cannot rely on such non-verbal cues anymore. To study how the interaction between pedestrians and automated vehicles (AVs) might look like in the future, and how this might be affected if AVs were to communicate their intent to pedestrians, we designed an external vehicle interface called automated vehicle interaction principle (AVIP) that communicates vehicles' mode and intent to pedestrians. The interaction was explored in two experiments using a Wizard of Oz approach to simulate automated driving. The first experiment was carried out at a zebra crossing and involved nine pedestrians. While it focused mainly on assessing the usability of the interface, it also revealed initial indications related to pedestrians' emotions and perceived safety when encountering an AV with/without the interface. The second experiment was carried out in a parking lot and involved 24 pedestrians, which enabled a more detailed assessment of pedestrians' perceived safety when encountering an AV, both with and without the interface. For comparison purposes, these pedestrians also encountered a conventional vehicle. After a short training course, the interface was deemed easy for the pedestrians to interpret. The pedestrians stated that they felt significantly less safe when they encountered the AV without the interface, compared to the conventional vehicle and the AV with the interface. This suggests that the interface could contribute to a positive experience and improved perceived safety in pedestrian encounters with AVs - something that might be important for general acceptance of AVs. As such, this topic should be further investigated in future studies involving a larger sample and more dynamic conditions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques
Long, D. R., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1993) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/328955 · Cited by 17,576
Hutchins, E. (1995) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001 · Cited by 10,801 · cited 2×
“One of the fundamental findings of cognitive engineering is that artifacts shape cognition and collaboration (Hutchins, 1995; Woods, 1998).”
BackgroundMeasuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994) · Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9 · Cited by 9,538
Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems
Endsley, M. R. (1995) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872095779049543 · Cited by 8,875
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605 · cited 2×
“In summary, a robot providing humans with its intentions appears more reliable, predictable, and transparent to humans, which, in turn, facilitates trust that is a key for safety and comfort of humans involved in the interaction (Lee and See, 2004; Dautenhahn, 2007; Hoff and Bashir, 2014).”
BackgroundMood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM).
Forgas, J. P. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39 · Cited by 3,470
Trust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust
Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720814547570 · Cited by 2,817
A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems
Nielsen, J., & Landauer, T. K. (1993) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '93 · doi:10.1145/169059.169166 · Cited by 1,961
Joint action: bodies and minds moving together
SEBANZ, N., BEKKERING, H., & KNOBLICH, G. (2006) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009 · Cited by 1,950
Human–Robot Interaction: A Survey
Goodrich, M. A., & Schultz, A. C. (2008) · Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1561/1100000005 · Cited by 1,541
Cited by
Autonomous Vehicles That Interact With Pedestrians: A Survey of Theory and Practice
Rasouli, A., & Tsotsos, J. K. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · doi:10.1109/tits.2019.2901817 · Cited by 855
Prattico, F. G., Lamberti, F., Cannavo, A., Morra, L., & Montuschi, P. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · doi:10.1109/tvt.2021.3054312 · Cited by 59
Designing Communication Strategies of Autonomous Vehicles with Pedestrians: An Intercultural Study
Lanzer, M., Babel, F., Yan, F., Zhang, B., You, F., Wang, J., & Baumann, M. (2020) · 12th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications · doi:10.1145/3409120.3410653 · Cited by 52
Why Autonomous Driving Is So Hard: The Social Dimension of Traffic
Pelikan, H. R. M. (2021) · Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3434074.3447133 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Habibovic, A., Lundgren, V. M., Andersson, J., Klingegård, M., Lagström, T., Sirkka, A., Fagerlönn, J., Edgren, C., Fredriksson, R., Krupenia, S., Saluäär, D., & Larsson, P.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2018-08-07
- Volume
- 9
- Pages
- 1336-1336
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2885800163
- Cited by
- 298
- References
- 44
- FWCI
- 35.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Communicating Intent of Automated Vehicles to Pedestrians. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01336
- The paper
- Habibovic, A., Lundgren, V. M., Andersson, J., Klingegård, M., Lagström, T., Sirkka, A., Fagerlönn, J., Edgren, C., Fredriksson, R., Krupenia, S., Saluäär, D., & Larsson, P. (2018). Communicating Intent of Automated Vehicles to Pedestrians. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01336
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.