External HMIs and Their Effect on the Interaction Between Pedestrians and Automated Vehicles

  • Ye Eun Song
  • Christian LehsingEmail author
  • Tanja Fuest
  • Klaus Bengler
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 722)


This paper presents a study where different types of external Human Machine Interfaces (eHMIs) are used to communicate the system state of a highly automated vehicle (SAE Level 5) that shows the intention to give right of way to pedestrians. In an interactive online survey with embedded videos for a pedestrian crossing scenario, the participants, placed in the ego perspective of the crossing pedestrian, had to decide whether they want to cross or not in regard to the equipment status of the vehicle (with eHMI vs. without) and how the system state was communicated (command vs. affirmative). The statistical analysis revealed slight tendencies within the eHMI types. Significant differences were found regarding the comparison between the implicit (no eHMI) and explicit (with eHMI) condition of the communication in the crossing frequency and the reaction time.


V2P communication Explicit communication Human machine interaction Automated vehicle system 



The present study was performed within the Interdisciplinary Project at the Chair of Ergonomics, Technical University of Munich. The authors would like to thank our colleagues: Johannes Hinterstoesser, Alexander Hofer, and Marvin Loch for their valuable collaboration, encouragement, and inspiration of this study.


  1. 1.
    SAE On-Road Automated Vehicle Standards Committee: Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to on-road motor vehicle automated driving systems. SAE Standard J3016, 16 January 2014Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clamann, M., Aubert, M., Cummings, M.L.: Evaluation of Vehicle-to-Pedestrian Communication Displays for Autonomous Vehicles (No. 17-02119) (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lagstrom, T., Lundgren, V.M.: AVIP-Autonomous vehicles interaction with pedestrians (Master Thesis). Chalmers University of Technology (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Minx, E., Dietrich, R.: Autonomes Fahren. Wo wir heute stehen und was noch zu tun ist. Daimler und Benz Stiftung, Berlin (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Newsroom, N.G.: Nissan IDS Concept: Nissan’s vision for the future of EVs and autonomous driving (2017).
  6. 6.
    Fuest, T., Sorokin, L., Bellem, H., Bengler, K.: Taxonomy of traffic situations for the interaction between automated vehicles and human road users. In: Stanton, N. (ed.) Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation, AHFE 2017. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 597, pp. 708–719. Springer, Cham (2018). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pernice, K., Whitenton, K., Nielsen, J.: How People Read on the Web: The Eyetracking Evidence. Nielsen Norman Group, Fremont (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fraedrich, E., Lenz, B.: Automated driving: individual and societal aspects. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2416, 64–72 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ye Eun Song
    • 1
  • Christian Lehsing
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tanja Fuest
    • 1
  • Klaus Bengler
    • 1
  1. 1.Technical University of MunichGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations