Back to all available

Augmented Reality Head-Up Display and its impact on driver distraction: A multivocal literature review from 2020 to 2025

human-computer-interaction
emerging-technologies
real-time-and-embedded-systems

Abstract

Augmented Reality Head-Up Displays (AR-HUDs) promise to enhance drivers’ situational awareness, but they can also increase visual and cognitive load, potentially leading to driver distraction if not carefully designed and evaluated. This Multivocal Literature Review, covering 2020 through June 2025, combines White and Grey Literature to jointly address which interaction problems occur most frequently, how these systems are being designed and evaluated, and what challenges remain.

The findings converge on two recurring issues: first, comprehension of graphics, which is highly sensitive to choices of color, size, position, hierarchy, and presentation timing; and second, legibility of graphics, closely tied to AR–real-world integration and requiring precise spatial and temporal alignment. The current evidence skews toward simulator studies, with limited on-road validation and little explicit reference to standards. Even so, the use of mixed evaluations that combine objective and subjective metrics is growing, and adaptive attention management is gaining ground: selecting, prioritizing, and limiting in real time what is shown according to urgency, context, and driver state. Overall, the field is shifting from static overlays to contextual and adaptive interfaces, where the value lies not only in what to display, but in when, where, and how much to display, maximizing comprehensibility and trust while minimizing driver distraction.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].