research-article

A Real Bottleneck Scenario with a Wizard of Oz Automated Vehicle - Role of eHMIs

Authors:

Hatice Şahin İppoliti,

Angelique Daudrich,

Philipp Wintersberger,

Shadan Sadeghian,

Susanne BollAuthors Info & Claims

AutomotiveUI '23: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications

Pages 280 - 290

https://doi.org/10.1145/3580585.3607173

Published: 18 September 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Automated vehicles (AVs) are expected to encounter various ambiguous space-sharing conflicts in urban traffic. Bottleneck scenarios, where one of the parts needs to resolve the conflict by yielding priority to the other, could be utilized as a representative ambiguous scenario to understand human behavior in experimental settings. We conducted a controlled field experiment with a Wizard of Oz automated car in a bottleneck scenario. 24 participants attended the study by driving their own cars. They made yielding, or priority-taking decisions based on implicit and explicit locomotion cues on AV realized with an external display. Results indicate that acceleration and deceleration cues affected participants’ driving choices and their perception regarding the social behavior of AV, which further serve as ecological validation of related simulation studies.

Supplementary Material

eHMI and bottleneck gifs, experimental procedure flowchart (supplements.zip)

Download
201.19 KB

References

[1]

Sander Ackermans, Debargha Dey, Peter Ruijten, Raymond H Cuijpers, and Bastian Pfleging. 2020. The Effects of Explicit Intention Communication, Conspicuous Sensors, and Pedestrian Attitude in Interactions with Automated Vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM SIGCHI, Hawaii, USA, 1–14.

Digital Library

[2]

Adafruit. 2023. Adafruit RGB Matrix HAT + RTC for Raspberry Pi - Mini Kit. https://www.adafruit.com/product/2345, [Online; accessed 15-March-2023].

[3]

Dina AlAdawy, Michael Glazer, Jack Terwilliger, Henri Schmidt, Josh Domeyer, Bruce Mehler, Bryan Reimer, and Lex Fridman. 2019. Eye Contact between Pedestrians and Drivers. In Driving Assessment Conference. The University of Iowa, Iowa, USA, 301–307. https://doi.org/10.17077/drivingassessment.1710 arxiv:1904.04188

[4]

Douglas Bates, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 1 (2015), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

[5]

Flavie Bonneviot, Stéphanie Coeugnet, and Eric Brangier. 2021. Pedestrians-Automated Vehicles Interaction: Toward a Specific Trust Model?. In Proceedings of the 21st Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2021) Volume III: Sector Based Ergonomics. Springer, Springer, Virtual, 568–574.

[6]

Shadan Sadeghian Borojeni, Lars Weber, Wilko Heuten, and Susanne Boll. 2018. From reading to driving: priming mobile users for take-over situations in highly automated driving. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services. ACM SIGCHI, Barcelona, Spain, 1–12.

Digital Library

[7]

Fanta Camara, Serhan Cosar, Nicola Bellotto, Natasha Merat, Charles Fox, 2020. Continuous Game Theory Pedestrian Modelling Method for Autonomous Vehicles., 20 pages.

[8]

Gustavo Carlo, Anne Hausmann, Stacie Christiansen, and Brandy A Randall. 2003. Sociocognitive and behavioral correlates of a measure of prosocial tendencies for adolescents. The journal of early adolescence 23, 1 (2003), 107–134.

[9]

Chia-Ming Chang, Koki Toda, Daisuke Sakamoto, and Takeo Igarashi. 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. ACM SIGCHI, Oldenburg, Germany, 65–73.

Digital Library

[10]

chiark.greenend. 2023. PuTTY: a free SSH and Telnet client. https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ sgtatham/putty/, [Online; accessed 15-March-2023].

[11]

Mark Colley, Tim Fabian, and Enrico Rukzio. 2022. Investigating the Effects of External Communication and Automation Behavior on Manual Drivers at Intersections. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, MHCI (Sept. 2022), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3546711

Digital Library

[12]

Koen De Clercq, Andre Dietrich, Juan Pablo Núñez Velasco, Joost De Winter, and Riender Happee. 2019. External Human-Machine Interfaces on Automated Vehicles: Effects on Pedestrian Crossing Decisions. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 61, 8 (2019), 1353–1370.

[13]

Debargha Dey, Azra Habibovic, Andreas Löcken, Philipp Wintersberger, Bastian Pfleging, Andreas Riener, Marieke Martens, and Jacques Terken. 2020. Taming the eHMI jungle: A classification taxonomy to guide, compare, and assess the design principles of automated vehicles’ external human-machine interfaces. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 7 (2020), 100174.

[14]

Debargha Dey, Azra Habibovic, Bastian Pfleging, Marieke Martens, and Jacques Terken. 2020. Color and animation preferences for a light band eHMI in interactions between automated vehicles and pedestrians. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM SIGCHI, Hawaii, USA, 1–13.

Digital Library

[15]

Debargha Dey, Andrii Matviienko, Melanie Berger, Bastian Pfleging, Marieke Martens, and Jacques Terken. 2020. Communicating the Intention of an Automated Vehicle to Pedestrians: the Contributions of eHMI and Vehicle Behavior. Information Technology Submitted, Special Issue: Automotive User Interfaces in the Age of Automation (2020), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1515/ITIT-2020-0025

[16]

Debargha Dey and Jacques Terken. 2017. Pedestrian interaction with vehicles: roles of explicit and implicit communication. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. ACM SIGCHI, Oldenburg, Germany, 109–113.

Digital Library

[17]

Leonard Evans. 1991. Traffic safety and the driver. Science Serving Society, MI, USA.

[18]

Roja Ezzati Amini, Christos Katrakazas, and Constantinos Antoniou. 2019. Negotiation and decision-making for a pedestrian roadway crossing: A literature review. Sustainability 11, 23 (2019), 6713.

[19]

Stefanie M. Faas, Johannes Kraus, Alexander Schoenhals, and Martin Baumann. 2021. Calibrating Pedestrians’ Trust in Automated Vehicles., 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445738

Digital Library

[20]

Stefanie M Faas, Lesley-Ann Mathis, and Martin Baumann. 2020. External HMI for self-driving vehicles: which information shall be displayed?Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 68 (2020), 171–186.

[21]

Charles Fox, Fanta Camara, Gustav Markkula, Richard Romano, Ruth Madigan, Natasha Merat, 2018. When should the chicken cross the road?: Game theory for autonomous vehicle-human interactions.

[22]

Lex Fridman, Bruce Mehler, Lei Xia, Yangyang Yang, Laura Yvonne Facusse, and Bryan Reimer. 2019. To Walk or Not to Walk: Crowdsourced Assessment of External Vehicle-to-Pedestrian Displays. arxiv:1707.02698https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.02698.pdf http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.02698

[23]

Anna-Katharina Frison, Philipp Wintersberger, Andreas Riener, Clemens Schartmüller, Linda Ng Boyle, Erika Miller, and Klemens Weigl. 2019. In UX we trust: Investigation of aesthetics and usability of driver-vehicle interfaces and their impact on the perception of automated driving. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM SIGCHI, Glasgow, Scotland, 1–13.

Digital Library

[24]

Christian Gold, Moritz Körber, Christoph Hohenberger, David Lechner, and Klaus Bengler. 2015. Trust in automation–before and after the experience of take-over scenarios in a highly automated vehicle. Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015), 3025–3032.

[25]

E Bruce Goldstein and Laura Cacciamani. 2021. Sensation and perception. Cengage Learning, Boston, Massachusetts, United States.

[26]

Nicolas Guéguen, Sébastien Meineri, and Chloé Eyssartier. 2015. A pedestrian’s stare and drivers’ stopping behavior: A field experiment at the pedestrian crossing. Safety science 75 (2015), 87–89.

[27]

Azra Habibovic, Victor Malmsten Lundgren, Jonas Andersson, Maria Klingegård, Tobias Lagström, Anna Sirkka, Johan Fagerlönn, Claes Edgren, Rikard Fredriksson, Stas Krupenia, 2018. Communicating intent of automated vehicles to pedestrians. Frontiers in psychology 9 (2018), 1336.

[28]

Paul B Harris, John M Houston, Jose A Vazquez, Janan A Smither, Amanda Harms, Jeffrey A Dahlke, and Daniel A Sachau. 2014. The Prosocial and Aggressive Driving Inventory (PADI): A self-report measure of safe and unsafe driving behaviors. Accident Analysis & Prevention 72 (2014), 1–8.

[29]

Sebastian Hergeth, Lutz Lorenz, Roman Vilimek, and Josef F Krems. 2016. Keep your scanners peeled: Gaze behavior as a measure of automation trust during highly automated driving. Human factors 58, 3 (2016), 509–519.

[30]

Kai Holländer, Philipp Wintersberger, and Andreas Butz. 2019. Overtrust in external cues of automated vehicles: an experimental investigation. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. ACM SIGCHI, Utrecht, Netherlands, 211–221.

Digital Library

[31]

Brittany E Holthausen, Philipp Wintersberger, Zoe Becerra, Alexander G Mirnig, Alexander Kunze, and Bruce N Walker. 2019. Third workshop on trust in automation: how does trust influence interaction. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications: Adjunct Proceedings. ACM SIGCHI, Utrecht, Netherlands, 13–18.

[32]

Brittany E Holthausen, Philipp Wintersberger, Bruce N Walker, and Andreas Riener. 2020. Situational trust scale for automated driving (STS-AD): Development and initial validation. In 12th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM SIGCHI, Virtual, DC, USA, 40–47.

Digital Library

[33]

Nico A Kaptein, Jan Theeuwes, and Richard Van Der Horst. 1996. Driving simulator validity: Some considerations. Transportation research record 1550, 1 (1996), 30–36.

[34]

Mirjam Lanzer, Franziska Babel, Fei Yan, Bihan Zhang, Fang You, Jianmin Wang, and Martin Baumann. 2020. Designing communication strategies of autonomous vehicles with pedestrians: an intercultural study. In 12th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM SIGCHI, Virtual, DC, USA, 122–131.

Digital Library

[35]

John D Lee and Katrina A See. 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human factors 46, 1 (2004), 50–80.

[36]

Yee Mun Lee, Ruth Madigan, Oscar Giles, Laura Garach-Morcillo, Gustav Markkula, Charles Fox, Fanta Camara, Markus Rothmueller, Signe Alexandra Vendelbo-Larsen, Pernille Holm Rasmussen, Andre Dietrich, Dimitris Nathanael, Villy Portouli, Anna Schieben, and Natasha Merat. 2020. Road users rarely use explicit communication when interacting in today’s traffic: implications for automated vehicles. Cognition, Technology and Work 1 (2020), 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-020-00635-y

Digital Library

[37]

Hailong Liu, Takatsugu Hirayama, and Masaya Watanabe. 2021. Importance of instruction for pedestrian-automated driving vehicle interaction with an external human machine interface: Effects on pedestrians’ situation awareness, trust, perceived risks and decision making. In 2021 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Nagoya, Japan, 748–754.

[38]

Peng Liu, Yong Du, Lin Wang, and Ju Da Young. 2020. Ready to bully automated vehicles on public roads?Accident Analysis & Prevention 137 (2020), 105457.

[39]

Andreas Löcken, Carmen Golling, and Andreas Riener. 2019. How should automated vehicles interact with pedestrians? A comparative analysis of interaction concepts in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. ACM SIGCHI, Utrecht, Netherlands, 262–274.

Digital Library

[40]

Victor Malmsten Lundgren, Azra Habibovic, Jonas Andersson, Tobias Lagström, Maria Nilsson, Anna Sirkka, Johan Fagerlönn, Rikard Fredriksson, Claes Edgren, Stas Krupenia, 2017. Will there be new communication needs when introducing automated vehicles to the urban context? In Advances in human aspects of transportation. Springer, NY, USA, 485–497.

[41]

Gustav Markkula, Ruth Madigan, Dimitris Nathanael, Evangelia Portouli, Yee M Lee, André Dietrich, Jac Billington, Anna Schieben, and Natasha Merat. 2020. Defining interactions: A conceptual framework for understanding interactive behaviour in human and automated road traffic. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 21, 6 (2020), 1–24.

[42]

MAXQDA. 2023. The #1 software for qualitative and mixed methods data analysis. https://www.maxqda.com/, [Online; accessed 17-March-2023].

[43]

Philipp Mayring 2004. Qualitative content analysis. A companion to qualitative research 1, 2 (2004), 159–176.

[44]

Adam Millard-Ball. 2018. Pedestrians, autonomous vehicles, and cities. Journal of planning education and research 38, 1 (2018), 6–12.

[45]

Linda Miller, Ina Marie Koniakowsky, Johannes Kraus, and Martin Baumann. 2022. The Impact of Expectations about Automated and Manual Vehicles on Drivers’ Behavior: Insights from a Mixed Traffic Driving Simulator Study. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, Seoul Republic of Korea, 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1145/3543174.3546837

Digital Library

[46]

Linda Miller, Jasmin Leitner, Johannes Kraus, and Martin Baumann. 2022. Implicit intention communication as a design opportunity for automated vehicles: Understanding drivers’ interpretation of vehicle trajectory at narrow passages. Accident Analysis & Prevention 173 (Aug. 2022), 106691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106691

[47]

Alexander G Mirnig, Magdalena Gärtner, Peter Fröhlich, Vivien Wallner, Anna Sjörs Dahlman, Anna Anund, Petr Pokorny, Marjan Hagenzieker, Torkel Bjørnskau, Ole Aasvik, 2022. External communication of automated shuttles: Results, experiences, and lessons learned from three European long-term research projects. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 9 (2022), 239.

[48]

Dylan Moore, Rebecca Currano, Michael Shanks, and David Sirkin. 2020. Defense against the dark cars: Design principles for griefing of autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM / IEEE, Cambridge, UK, 201–209.

Digital Library

[49]

Dylan Moore, Rebecca Currano, G Ella Strack, and David Sirkin. 2019. 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. ACM SIGCHI, Utrecht, Netherlands, 295–307.

Digital Library

[50]

Lars Müller, Malte Risto, and Colleen Emmenegger. 2016. The social behavior of autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct. ACM SIGCHI, Heidelberg, Germany, 686–689.

Digital Library

[51]

Cassidy Myers, Thomas Zane, Ron Van Houten, and Vincent T Francisco. 2022. The effects of pedestrian gestures on driver yielding at crosswalks: A systematic replication. Journal of applied behavior analysis 55, 2 (2022), 572–583.

[52]

John Ashworth Nelder and Robert WM Wedderburn. 1972. Generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General) 135, 3 (1972), 370–384.

[53]

Anatol Rapoport and Albert M Chammah. 1966. The game of chicken. American Behavioral Scientist 10, 3 (1966), 10–28.

[54]

Amir Rasouli, Iuliia Kotseruba, and John K Tsotsos. 2017. Agreeing to cross: How drivers and pedestrians communicate. In 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Redondo Beach, California, USA, 264–269.

Digital Library

[55]

Michael Rettenmaier, Deike Albers, and Klaus Bengler. 2020. After you?! – Use of external human-machine interfaces in road bottleneck scenarios. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 70 (April 2020), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.03.004

[56]

Michael Rettenmaier and Klaus Bengler. 2020. Modeling the Interaction with Automated Vehicles in Road Bottleneck Scenarios. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 64, 1 (Dec. 2020), 1615–1619. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181320641391

[57]

Michael Rettenmaier and Klaus Bengler. 2021. The Matter of How and When: Comparing Explicit and Implicit Communication Strategies of Automated Vehicles in Bottleneck Scenarios. IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems 2 (2021), 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1109/OJITS.2021.3107678

[58]

Michael Rettenmaier, Sabrina Dinkel, and Klaus Bengler. 2021. Communication via motion – Suitability of automated vehicle movements to negotiate the right of way in road bottleneck scenarios. Applied Ergonomics 95 (Sept. 2021), 103438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103438

[59]

Michael Rettenmaier, Moritz Pietsch, Jonas Schmidtler, and Klaus Bengler. 2019. Passing through the Bottleneck - The Potential of External Human-Machine Interfaces. In 2019 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, Paris, France, 1687–1692. https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2019.8814082

Digital Library

[60]

Malte Risto, Colleen Emmenegger, Erik Vinkhuyzen, Melissa Cefkin, and Jim Hollan. 2017. Human-vehicle interfaces: the power of vehicle movement gestures in human road user coordination.

[61]

Johannes Rodrigues, Natalie Ulrich, Patrick Mussel, Gustavo Carlo, and Johannes Hewig. 2017. Measuring prosocial tendencies in Germany: Sources of validity and reliablity of the revised prosocial tendency measure. Frontiers in psychology 8 (2017), 2119.

[62]

Dirk Rothenbücher, Jamy Li, David Sirkin, Brian Mok, and Wendy Ju. 2015. Ghost driver: a platform for investigating interactions between pedestrians and driverless vehicles. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM SIGCHI, Nottingham, UK, 44–49.

Digital Library

[63]

RStudio Team. 2020. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. RStudio, PBC., Boston, MA. http://www.rstudio.com/

[64]

Shadan Sadeghian, Marc Hassenzahl, and Kai Eckoldt. 2020. An exploration of prosocial aspects of communication cues between automated vehicles and pedestrians. In 12th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM SIGCHI, Virtual, DC, USA, 205–211.

Digital Library

[65]

Matúš Šucha, Daniel Dostal, and Ralf Risser. 2017. Pedestrian-driver communication and decision strategies at marked crossings. Accident Analysis & Prevention 102 (2017), 41–50.

[66]

David R Thomas. 2006. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American journal of evaluation 27, 2 (2006), 237–246.

[67]

Thonny. 2023. Thonny: Python IDE for beginners. https://thonny.org/,[Online; accessed 15-March-2023].

[68]

Philipp Wintersberger, Clemens Schartmüller, Shadan Sadeghian, Anna-Katharina Frison, and Andreas Riener. 2021. Evaluation of imminent take-over requests with real automation on a test track., 00187208211051435 pages.

[69]

Henner Zeller. 2023. Controlling RGB LED display with Raspberry Pi GPIO. https://github.com/hzeller/rpi-rgb-led-matrix,[Online; accessed 15-March-2023].

[70]

Xiangling Zhuang and Changxu Wu. 2014. Pedestrian gestures increase driver yielding at uncontrolled mid-block road crossings. Accident Analysis & Prevention 70 (2014), 235–244.

Cited By

Sadeghian SŞahin İppoliti HDey DWintersberger P(2024)Designing Technologies for Socially and Environmentally Sustainable MobilityAdjunct Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications10.1145/3641308.3677398(242-246)Online publication date: 22-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3641308.3677398
Kotsios HAsteriou PWintersberger P(2024)Only Trust a Hidden Wizard: Investigating the Effects of Wizard Visibility in Automotive Wizard of Oz StudiesProceedings of the 16th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications10.1145/3640792.3675738(74-82)Online publication date: 22-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3640792.3675738
Passero SPelikan HBroth MBrown B(2024)Honkable Gestalts: Why Autonomous Vehicles Get Honked AtProceedings of the 16th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications10.1145/3640792.3675732(317-328)Online publication date: 22-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3640792.3675732

Index Terms

A Real Bottleneck Scenario with a Wizard of Oz Automated Vehicle - Role of eHMIs
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. HCI design and evaluation methods
      1. Field studies
      2. User studies
    2. Interaction devices
      1. Displays and imagers
  2. Interaction design
    1. Interaction design process and methods
      1. Interface design prototyping

Recommendations

Wizard of Oz experiments and companion dialogues
BCS '10: Proceedings of the 24th BCS Interaction Specialist Group Conference

Novel speech systems such as the conversational agents being developed by the Companions Project (www.companions-project.org) can be simulated using the Wizard of Oz methodology. In this approach technologies that are not yet ready for testing by people ...
Wizard of Oz experiments for companions
BCS-HCI '09: Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Celebrating People and Technology

Wizard of Oz experiments allow designers and developers to see the reactions of people as they interact with to-be-developed technologies. At the Centre for Interaction Design at Edinburgh Napier University we are developing a Wizard of Oz system to ...
The oz of wizard: simulating the human for interaction research
HRI '09: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human robot interaction

The Wizard of Oz experiment method has a long tradition of acceptance and use within the field of human-robot interaction. The community has traditionally downplayed the importance of interaction evaluations run with the inverse model: the human ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

AutomotiveUI '23: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications

September 2023

352 pages

ISBN:9798400701054

DOI:10.1145/3580585

Copyright © 2023 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 18 September 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

AutomotiveUI '23

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

AutomotiveUI '23: 15th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications

September 18 - 22, 2023

Ingolstadt, Germany

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 248 of 566 submissions, 44%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
241
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)115
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8

Reflects downloads up to 18 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Sadeghian SŞahin İppoliti HDey DWintersberger P(2024)Designing Technologies for Socially and Environmentally Sustainable MobilityAdjunct Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications10.1145/3641308.3677398(242-246)Online publication date: 22-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3641308.3677398
Kotsios HAsteriou PWintersberger P(2024)Only Trust a Hidden Wizard: Investigating the Effects of Wizard Visibility in Automotive Wizard of Oz StudiesProceedings of the 16th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications10.1145/3640792.3675738(74-82)Online publication date: 22-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3640792.3675738
Passero SPelikan HBroth MBrown B(2024)Honkable Gestalts: Why Autonomous Vehicles Get Honked AtProceedings of the 16th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications10.1145/3640792.3675732(317-328)Online publication date: 22-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3640792.3675732

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents