Auditory interfaces in automated driving: an international survey
- Published
- Accepted
- Subject Areas
- Human-Computer Interaction, Autonomous Systems, Multimedia
- Keywords
- Driverless car, Crowdsourcing, Survey, Questionnaire, Fully automated driving, Highly automated driving, Warning
- Copyright
- © 2015 Bazilinskyy et al.
- Licence
- This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ PrePrints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
- Cite this article
- 2015. Auditory interfaces in automated driving: an international survey. PeerJ PrePrints 3:e1069v2 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.1069v2
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.
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.
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