Jamy Li
Rebecca Currano
David Sirkin
Vanessa Evers
Wendy Ju
ABSTRACT
A growing number of studies use a "ghost-driver" vehicle driven by a person in a car seat costume to simulate an autonomous vehicle. Using a hidden-driver vehicle in a field study in the Netherlands, Study 1 (N = 130) confirmed that the ghostdriver methodology is valid in Europe and confirmed that European pedestrians change their behavior when encountering a hidden-driver vehicle. As an important extension to past research, we find pedestrian group size is associated with their behavior: groups look longer than singletons when encountering an autonomous vehicle, but look for less time than singletons when encountering a normal vehicle. Study 2 (N = 101) adapted and extended the hidden-driver method to test whether it is believable as online video stimuli and whether car characteristics and participant feelings are related to the beliefs and behavior of pedestrians who see hidden-driver vehicles. As expected, belief rates were lower for hidden-driver vehicles seen in videos compared to in a field study. Importantly, we found noticing no driver was the only significant predictor of belief in car autonomy, which reinforces prior justification for the use of the ghostdriver method. Our contributions are a replication of the hidden-driver method in Europe and comparisons with past US and Mexico data; an extension and evaluation of the ghostdriver method in video form; evidence of the necessity of the hidden driver in creating the illusion of vehicle autonomy; and an extended analysis of how pedestrian group size and feelings relate to pedestrian behavior when encountering a hidden-driver vehicle.
Supplemental Material
Available for Download
Readme for Supplemental Materials Paper Title: On-Road and Online Studies to Investigate Beliefs and Behaviors of Netherlands, US and Mexico Pedestrians Encountering Hidden-Driver Vehicles Videos: video49b_edit.mov is a "street-view" video of a hidden-driver vehicle shown to online study (Study 2) participants. It is referenced as video49 in Figure 3. video51b_edit.mov is also a "street-view" video of a hidden-driver vehicle shown to online study participants. It is referenced as video51 in Figure 3.
- Sigal G Barsade. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 47, 4 (2002), 644--675.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Gerard J Blaauw. 1982. Driving experience and task demands in simulator and instrumented car: a validation study. Human Factors , Vol. 24, 4 (1982), 473--486.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gregory Camilli and Kenneth D Hopkins. 1978. Applicability of chi-square to 2× 2 contingency tables with small expected cell frequencies. Psychological Bulletin , Vol. 85, 1 (1978), 163.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chia-Ming Chang, Koki Toda, Takeo Igarashi, Masahiro Miyata, and Yasuhiro Kobayashi. 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. ACM, 104--109.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vicky Charisi, Azra Habibovic, Jonas Andersson, Jamy Li, and Vanessa Evers. 2017. Children's views on identification and intention communication of self-driving vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, 399--404.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Clamann, Miles Aubert, and Mary L Cummings. 2017. Evaluation of vehicle-to-pedestrian communication displays for autonomous vehicles . Technical Report.Google Scholar
- Rebecca Currano, So Yeon Park, Lawrence Domingo, Jesus Garcia-Mancilla, Pedro C Santana-Mancilla, Victor M Gonzalez, and Wendy Ju. 2018. !` Vamos!: Observations of Pedestrian Interactions with Driverless Cars in Mexico. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, 210--220.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shuchisnigdha Deb, Lesley Strawderman, Daniel W Carruth, Janice DuBien, Brian Smith, and Teena M Garrison. 2017. Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess pedestrian receptivity toward fully autonomous vehicles. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies , Vol. 84 (2017), 178--195.Google Scholar
- Debargha Dey, Marieke Martens, Berry Eggen, and Jacques Terken. 2017. The impact of vehicle appearance and vehicle behavior on pedestrian interaction with autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications Adjunct . ACM, 158--162.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Debargha Dey, Marieke Martens, Berry Eggen, and Jacques Terken. 2019. Pedestrian road-crossing willingness as a function of vehicle automation, external appearance, and driving behaviour. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour , Vol. 65 (2019), 191--205.Google Scholar
- Debargha Dey, Marieke Martens, Chao Wang, Felix Ros, and Jacques MB Terken. 2018. Interface Concepts for Intent Communication from Autonomous Vehicles to Vulnerable Road Users.. In AutomotiveUI (adjunct). 82--86.Google Scholar
- Jolyon J Faria, Stefan Krause, and Jens Krause. 2010. Collective behavior in road crossing pedestrians: the role of social information. Behavioral Ecology , Vol. 21, 6 (2010), 1236--1242.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrew C Gallup, Joseph J Hale, David JT Sumpter, Simon Garnier, Alex Kacelnik, John R Krebs, and Iain D Couzin. 2012. Visual attention and the acquisition of information in human crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , Vol. 109, 19 (2012), 7245--7250.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Julie Hatfield, Ralston Fernandes, RF Soames Job, and Ken Smith. 2007. Misunderstanding of right-of-way rules at various pedestrian crossing types: observational study and survey. Accident Analysis & Prevention , Vol. 39, 4 (2007), 833--842.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Julie Hatfield and Susanne Murphy. 2007. The effects of mobile phone use on pedestrian crossing behaviour at signalised and unsignalised intersections. Accident analysis & prevention , Vol. 39, 1 (2007), 197--205.Google Scholar
- Kotaro Hayashi, Daisuke Sakamoto, Takayuki Kanda, Masahiro Shiomi, Satoshi Koizumi, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Tsukasa Ogasawara, and Norihiro Hagita. 2007. Humanoid robots as a passive-social medium-a field experiment at a train station. In 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 137--144.Google Scholar
- Matthew Lombard, Jennifer Snyder-Duch, and Cheryl Campanella Bracken. 2010. Practical resources for assessing and reporting intercoder reliability in content analysis research projects. (2010).Google Scholar
- Karthik Mahadevan, Sowmya Somanath, and Ehud Sharlin. 2018. Communicating awareness and intent in autonomous vehicle-pedestrian interaction. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 429.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Milecia Matthews, Girish Chowdhary, and Emily Kieson. 2017. Intent communication between autonomous vehicles and pedestrians. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07123 (2017).Google Scholar
- Nicole Mirnig, Nicole Perterer, Gerald Stollnberger, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2017. Three strategies for autonomous car-to-pedestrian communication: A survival guide. In Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 209--210.Google ScholarDigital Library
- World Health Organization. 2015. Global status report on road safety 2015 .World Health Organization.Google Scholar
- David R Ragland and Meghan Fehlig Mitman. 2007. Driver/pedestrian understanding and behavior at marked and unmarked crosswalks. (2007).Google Scholar
- Samantha Reig, Selena Norman, Cecilia G Morales, Samadrita Das, Aaron Steinfeld, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2018. A Field Study of Pedestrians and Autonomous Vehicles. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, 198--209.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Laurel D Riek. 2012. Wizard of oz studies in hri: a systematic review and new reporting guidelines. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction , Vol. 1, 1 (2012), 119--136.Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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, 44--49.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brandon Schoettle and Michael Sivak. 2014. A survey of public opinion about autonomous and self-driving vehicles in the US, the UK, and Australia . Technical Report. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Transportation Research Institute.Google Scholar
- Masahiro Shiomi, Francesco Zanlungo, Kotaro Hayashi, and Takayuki Kanda. 2014. Towards a socially acceptable collision avoidance for a mobile robot navigating among pedestrians using a pedestrian model. International Journal of Social Robotics , Vol. 6, 3 (2014), 443--455.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Leah L Thompson, Frederick P Rivara, Rajiv C Ayyagari, and Beth E Ebel. 2013. Impact of social and technological distraction on pedestrian crossing behaviour: an observational study. Injury prevention , Vol. 19, 4 (2013), 232--237.Google Scholar
- Astrid Weiss, Regina Bernhaupt, Manfred Tscheligi, Dirk Wollherr, Kolja Kuhnlenz, and Martin Buss. 2008. A methodological variation for acceptance evaluation of human-robot interaction in public places. In RO-MAN 2008-The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. IEEE, 713--718.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sarah N Woods, Michael L Walters, Kheng Lee Koay, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2006. Methodological issues in HRI: A comparison of live and video-based methods in robot to human approach direction trials. In ROMAN 2006-the 15th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, 51--58.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jingyi Zhang, Erik Vinkhuyzen, and Melissa Cefkin. 2017. Evaluation of an autonomous vehicle external communication system concept: a survey study. In International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Springer, 650--661.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- On-Road and Online Studies to Investigate Beliefs and Behaviors of Netherlands, US and Mexico Pedestrians Encountering Hidden-Driver Vehicles
Recommendations
Ghost driver: a platform for investigating interactions between pedestrians and driverless vehicles
AutomotiveUI '15: Adjunct Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular ApplicationsHow will pedestrians and cyclists interact with self-driving cars when there is no human driver? To find answers to this question we need a secure experimental design in which pedestrians can interact with a car that appears to drive on its own. In ...
The Impact of Vehicle Appearance and Vehicle Behavior on Pedestrian Interaction with Autonomous Vehicles
AutomotiveUI '17: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications AdjunctIn this paper, we present the preliminary results of a study that aims to investigate the role of an approaching vehicle's behavior and outer appearance in determining pedestrians' decisions while crossing a street. Concerning appearance, some vehicles ...
A new standard for accident simulations for self-driving vehicles: Can we use Waymo’s results from accident simulations?
AbstractRecent simulations by Scanlon et al. showed seemingly spectacular results for the Waymo self-driving vehicle in simulations of real accident situations. In this paper, it is argued that the selection criteria for accident situations must be ...
Comments