Highway-rail grade crossings (HRGCs) present multiple collision risks for motorists, suggesting the need for additional countermeasures to increase driver compliance. The use of in-vehicle auditory alerts (IVAAs) at HRGCs has been increasing, but there are limited standards or guidelines on how such alerts should be implemented. In the current study, we sought to investigate the effect of different auditory display variables, such as display type and acoustics, on subjective user assessments. We recruited 24 participants and asked them to rate 36 different IVAAs belonging to one of three display types (earcons—short synthetic tones, speech alerts, and hybrid alerts consisting of an earcon and speech) along 11 subjective ratings. Results showed that a hybrid alert led to better overall ratings for acceptance, safety, and semantic understanding when compared with earcon or speech alerts. Additional analyses revealed that semantic variables, such as speech order and gender, should be accounted for when designing IVAAs in an HRGC context. Hybrid IVAAs with spatial audio showed lower Urgency and Hazard level ratings. Findings of the current study can help inform the design of IVAAs for HRGCs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MokS. C.SavageI.Why Has Safety Improved at Rail-Highway Grade Crossings?Risk Analysis: An International Journal, Vol. 25, No. 4, 2005, pp. 867–881.
YanX.HanL. D.RichardsS.MilleganH.Train–Vehicle Crash Risk Comparison between Before and After Stop Signs Installed at Highway–Rail Grade Crossings. Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol. 11, No. 5, 2010, pp. 535–542.
4.
McCollisterG. M.PflaumC. C.A Model to Predict the Probability of Highway Rail Crossing Accidents. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, Vol. 221, No. 3, 2007, pp. 321–329.
5.
LandryS.JeonM.LautalaP.NelsonD.Design and Assessment of In-Vehicle Auditory Alerts for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 62, 2019, pp. 228–245.
6.
BlattnerM. M.SumikawaD. A.GreenbergR. M.Earcons and Icons: Their Structure and Common Design Principles. Human–Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1989, pp. 11–44.
7.
GaverW. W.Auditory Icons: Using Sound in Computer Interfaces. Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1986, pp. 167–177.
8.
LarssonP.OpperudA.FredrikssonK.VästfjällD.Emotional and Behavioural Response to Auditory Icons and Earcons in Driver-Vehicle Interfaces. Proc., International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles 2009, Stuttgart, Germany, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2009, pp. 75–95.
9.
BelzS. M.RobinsonG. S.CasaliJ. G.A New Class of Auditory Warning Signals for Complex Systems: Auditory Icons. Human Factors, Vol. 41, No. 4, 1999, pp. 608–618.
10.
JeonM.SunY.Design and Evaluation of Lyricons (Lyrics+ Earcons) for Semantic and Aesthetic Improvements of Auditory Cues. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 2014.
11.
GrahamR.Use of Auditory Icons as Emergency Warnings: Evaluation within a Vehicle Collision Avoidance Application. Ergonomics, Vol. 42, No. 9, 1999, pp. 1233–1248.
12.
WalkerB. N.LindsayJ.NanceA.NakanoY.PalladinoD. K.DinglerT.JeonM.Spearcons (Speech-Based Earcons) Improve Navigation Performance in Advanced Auditory Menus. Human Factors, Vol. 55, No. 1, 2013, pp. 157–182.
13.
JeonM.GableT. M.DavisonB. K.NeesM. A.WilsonJ.WalkerB. N.Menu Navigation with In-Vehicle Technologies: Auditory Menu Cues Improve Dual Task Performance, Preference, and Workload. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2015, pp. 1–6.
14.
NeesM. A.HelbeinB.PorterA.Speech Auditory Alerts Promote Memory for Alerted Events in a Video-Simulated Self-Driving Car Ride. Human Factors, Vol. 58, No. 3, 2016, pp. 416–426.
15.
LarssonP.NiemandM.Using Sound to Reduce Visual Distraction from In-Vehicle Human–Machine Interfaces. Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol. 16, Supplement 1, 2015, pp. S25–S30.
16.
BaldwinC. L.MayJ. F.Loudness Interacts with Semantics in Auditory Warnings to Impact Rear-End Collisions. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2011, pp. 36–42.
17.
LewisB. A.EisertJ. L.BaldwinC. L.Validation of Essential Acoustic Parameters for Highly Urgent In-Vehicle Collision Warnings. Human Factors, Vol. 60, No. 2, 2018, pp. 248–261.
18.
LeeS. C.SanghaviH.KoS.JeonM.Autonomous Driving with an Agent: Speech Style and Embodiment. Proc., 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications: Adjunct Proceedings, Utrecht, Netherlands, 2019, pp. 209–214.
19.
DahlbäckN.WangQ.NassC.AlwinJ.Similarity Is More Important Than Expertise: Accent Effects in Speech Interfaces. Proc., SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, 2007, pp. 1553–1556.
20.
MoranS.SkovronE.NareM.VuK. P.Accent and Gender Bias in Perceptions of Interactive Voice Systems. In Proc., Lecture Notes in Computer Science: International Conference on Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics (HarrisD., ed.), Las Vegas, NV, July 15–20, 2018, Springer, Cham, pp. 457–470.
21.
JeonM.ParkJ.HeoU.YunJ.Enhanced Turning Point Displays Facilitate Drivers’ Interaction with Navigation Devices. Proc., 1st International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Essen, Germany, 2009, pp. 145–148.
22.
LambS.KwokK. C.A Longitudinal Investigation of Work Environment Stressors on the Performance and Wellbeing of Office Workers. Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 52, 2016, pp. 104–111.
23.
HoC.ReedN.SpenceC.Multisensory In-Car Warning Signals for Collision Avoidance. Human Factors, Vol. 49, No. 6, 2007, pp. 1107–1114.
24.
JeonM.Multimodal Displays for Take-Over in Level 3 Automated Vehicles while Playing a Game. Proc., Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, Scotland, 2019, pp. 1–6.
25.
ANSI Standard. ANSI Z535.4. Product Safety Signs and Labels, 2011.
26.
WanJ.WuC.ZhangY.Effects of Lead Time of Verbal Collision Warning Messages on Driving Behavior in Connected Vehicle Settings. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 58, 2016, pp. 89–98.
27.
ChughJ. S.CairdJ. K.In-Vehicle Train Warnings (ITW): The Effect of Reliability and Failure Type on Driver Perception Response Time and Trust. Presented at Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 43, No. 18, SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA, 1999, pp. 1012–1016.
28.
YehM.MulterJ.Driver Behavior at Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings: A Literature Review from 1990-2006. Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2008.
29.
MedinaJ. C.HajbabaieA.BenekohalR. R.Detection Performance of Wireless Magnetometers at Signalized Intersection and Railroad Grade Crossing under Various Weather Conditions. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2011. 2259: 233–241.
30.
SkoufasA.BasbasS.GrauJ. M.AifadopoulouG.Analysis of In-Vehicle Warning System for Rail-Road Level Crossings: Case Study in the City of Thessaloniki, Greece. Periodica Polytechnica Transportation Engineering, Vol. 49, No. 1, 2021, pp. 42–59.
31.
LandryS.JeonM.LautalaP.NelsonD.Getting Active with Passive Crossings: Investigating the Use of In-Vehicle Auditory Alerts for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Proc., ASME/IEEE Joint Rail Conference, Vol. 49675, Columbia, SC, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2016, p. V001T06A019.
32.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 15006: Road Vehicles -- Ergonomic Aspects of Transport Information and Control Systems -- Specifications for In-Vehicle Auditory Presentation. ICS, 2011.
33.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Human Factors Design Guidance for Driver-Vehicle Interfaces. NHTSA, Washington, D.C., 2016.
34.
ArrabitoG. R.Effects of Talker Sex and Voice Style of Verbal Cockpit Warnings on Performance. Human Factors, Vol. 51, No. 1, 2009, pp. 3–20.
35.
NeesM. A.WalkerB. N.Auditory Displays for In-Vehicle Technologies. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2011, pp. 58–99.
