Auditory interfaces in automated driving: an international survey
A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.
Author and article information
Abstract
This study investigated peoples’ opinion on auditory interfaces in contemporary cars and their willingness to be exposed to auditory feedback in automated driving. We used an Internet-based survey to collect 1,205 responses from 91 countries. The participants stated their attitudes towards two existing auditory driver assistance systems, a parking assistant (PA) and forward collision warning system (FCWS), as well as towards a futuristic augmented sound system (FS) proposed for fully automated driving. The respondents were positive towards the PA and FCWS, and rated their willingness to have these systems as 3.87 and 3.77, respectively (1 = disagree strongly, 5 = agree strongly). The respondents tolerated the FS. The results showed that a female voice is the most preferred feedback mode for the support of takeover requests in highly automated driving, regardless of whether the respondents’ country is English speaking or not. The present results could be useful for designers of automated vehicles and other stakeholders.
Cite this as
2015. Auditory interfaces in automated driving: an international survey. PeerJ PrePrints 3:e1069v2 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.1069v2note This preprint is not peer-reviewed. You may wish to reference the subsequent peer-reviewed version of this article.
Author comment
The document has been proofread and necessary corrections have been made. The aim has now been made more explicit in the relevant section. A description of an earcon was updated. We removed the numbers for the number of vehicles using PA and FCWS because we could not validate these data by means of a credible scientific source. The discussion has been extended, and now explains more clearly the limitation that respondents had to rely on a narrative/visual illustration of the auditory concepts. Table 1 has been updated, and now includes all response options for all questions. The mistake with the Adell et al. (2008) reference has been corrected. Citations and the reference list have been updated. ADAS is now replaced with level 2 automation. A number of other minor changes have been implemented.
Sections
Supplemental Information
Source code for analysis in Matlab, correlation matrix, XML code for Crowdflower survey
1. auditory_survey_correlation_matrix.xlsx -- correlation matrix for variables gathered from the survey
2. auditory_survey_data.mat -- data used in Matlab script
3. auditory_survey_script.m -- Matlab script for analysis
4. auditory_survey_webscript.xml -- XML script used in Crowdflower
Additional Information
Competing Interests
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Author Contributions
Pavlo Bazilinskyy conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, performed the computation work, reviewed drafts of the paper, organised outsourcing of creation of illustrations.
Joost C. F. De Winter conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, performed the computation work, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Human Ethics
The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):
The research was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) of the Delft University of Technology.
Funding
The research presented in this paper is being conducted in the project HFAuto – Human Factors of Automated Driving (PITN-GA-2013-605817). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
