Push the Red Button: Comparing Notification Placement with Augmented and Non-Augmented Tasks in AR

Plabst, Lucas; Oberdörfer, Sebastian; Ortega, Francisco R.; Niebling, Florian

doi:10.1145/3565970.3567701

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Pedestrian lights HUD also suffered from ‘practical limitations’; it was positioned slightly off-centre, leading to some discomfort as individuals had to adjust their gaze (see Plabst et al, 2022 , for a similar phenomenon). Note that participants could only glance at the HUD if they rotated their eyes, as the HUD always followed the user’s head movement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Augmented reality for supporting the interaction between pedestrians and automated vehicles: an experimental outdoor study

Aleva,

Tabone,

Dodou

et al. 2024

Front. Robot. AI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Communication from automated vehicles (AVs) to pedestrians using augmented reality (AR) could positively contribute to traffic safety. However, previous AR research for pedestrians was mainly conducted through online questionnaires or experiments in virtual environments instead of real ones.Methods: In this study, 28 participants conducted trials outdoors with an approaching AV and were supported by four different AR interfaces. The AR experience was created by having participants wear a Varjo XR-3 headset with see-through functionality, with the AV and AR elements virtually overlaid onto the real environment. The AR interfaces were vehicle-locked (Planes on vehicle), world-locked (Fixed pedestrian lights, Virtual fence), or head-locked (Pedestrian lights HUD). Participants had to hold down a button when they felt it was safe to cross, and their opinions were obtained through rating scales, interviews, and a questionnaire.Results: The results showed that participants had a subjective preference for AR interfaces over no AR interface. Furthermore, the Pedestrian lights HUD was more effective than no AR interface in a statistically significant manner, as it led to participants more frequently keeping the button pressed. The Fixed pedestrian lights scored lower than the other interfaces, presumably due to low saliency and the fact that participants had to visually identify both this AR interface and the AV.Discussion: In conclusion, while users favour AR in AV-pedestrian interactions over no AR, its effectiveness depends on design factors like location, visibility, and visual attention demands. In conclusion, this work provides important insights into the use of AR outdoors. The findings illustrate that, in these circumstances, a clear and easily interpretable AR interface is of key importance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%