arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2407.04070

Behavioural gap assessment of human-vehicle interaction in real and virtual reality-based scenarios in autonomous driving

Abstract

In the field of autonomous driving research, the use of immersive virtual reality (VR) techniques is widespread to enable a variety of studies under safe and controlled conditions. However, this methodology is only valid and consistent if the conduct of participants in the simulated setting mirrors their actions in an actual environment. In this paper, we present a first and innovative approach to evaluating what we term the behavioural gap, a concept that captures the disparity in a participant's conduct when engaging in a VR experiment compared to an equivalent real-world situation. To this end, we developed a digital twin of a pre-existed crosswalk and carried out a field experiment (N=18) to investigate pedestrian-autonomous vehicle interaction in both real and simulated driving conditions. In the experiment, the pedestrian attempts to cross the road in the presence of different driving styles and an external Human-Machine Interface (eHMI). By combining survey-based and behavioural analysis methodologies, we develop a quantitative approach to empirically assess the behavioural gap, as a mechanism to validate data obtained from real subjects interacting in a simulated VR-based environment. Results show that participants are more cautious and curious in VR, affecting their speed and decisions, and that VR interfaces significantly influence their actions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Sergio. Martín Serrano, Rubén Izquierdo, Iván García Daza, Miguel Ángel Sotelo, D. Fernández Llorca. 2024-07-04. Behavioural gap assessment of human-vehicle interaction in real and virtual reality-based scenarios in autonomous driving. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.04070

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Are explainable AI (XAI) evaluation strategies aligned? Comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical evaluation measures using saliency maps

The evaluation of explainable AI (XAI) approaches often relies on three families of methods: subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires on trust or satisfaction), objective measures (e.g., task performance metrics), and mathematical metrics (e.g., for faithfulness). Yet, it remains unclear how these families align or diverge in practice. In a{preregistered} between-subjects study (N=166), we use three established saliency map techniques (LIME, Grad-CAM, Guided Backpropagation) as a testbed to examine this issue. We find that each family of methods leads to different conclusions: participants reported no differences in trust or satisfaction, Grad-CAM improved user performance, while mathematical metrics favored Guided Backpropagation. At the same time, mathematical metrics were only partially related to user performance, and these relationships were sometimes counterintuitive. Our findings highlight the methodological importance of comparing subjective, objective, and mathematical approaches when evaluating XAI, illustrating both tensions and aspects that are aligned. We discuss implications for XAI evaluation frameworks.

cs.HC

Mind Your Ps and Qs: Positive Moderation Practice in the Positive Queue

Online communities rely on volunteer moderators to maintain order. Despite their key role, moderators are given a toolbox of punishments and far less support for encouraging contributions they want to see more of. We introduce the Positive Queue as a positive counterpart to Reddit's modqueue: a dedicated space for moderators to discover contributions and behaviors they want to encourage and positively reinforce. With five moderators, four with 6-14 years of experience, we use the Positive Queue to examine how moderators operationalize positive reinforcement. Moderators combined predicted community reception, observed engagement, and their own judgment; used prediction-engagement mismatches to identify overlooked content; and repurposed positive features for punitive and retrospective work. These findings surface tensions around labor, attribution, and community fit. We contribute the Positive Queue as a working system and conceptualize positive moderation as recognition infrastructure that shapes what moderators notice, whose judgment becomes visible, and how recognition reaches contributors.

cs.HC

PILOT: Control Surfaces for Authoring Social Media Feeds

Personalized social media feeds infer preferences from behavior, leaving people little direct control over what they see. Existing controls range from post-level reactions to rules and natural language, but little is known about how people use them together or how added expressiveness changes effort. We built PILOT, a Bluesky feed-authoring system that turns in-feed actions into explicit preferences, deterministic ranking, and inspectable outcomes. A study with seven participants informed an expanded implementation, which we organized into three nested control surfaces that ten participants compared within subjects. Participants assigned controls to distinct jobs: broad controls set direction, in-post actions refined results, and filters removed content. Richer surfaces did not necessarily feel more effortful, and participants' experiences depended more on whether they could verify and repair outcomes. Our findings show that usable feed control requires not simply more controls, but orchestration across mechanisms that support expression, inspection, repair, and episodic use.

cs.HC