对比三种远程控制交互方式，发现路径规划最易用但满意度低。
Introducing ROADS: A Systematic Comparison of Remote Control Interaction Concepts for Automated Vehicles at Road Works
- 设计三种远程交互概念并实测，包含路径规划等
- 路径规划交互使用最顺畅，但用户满意度最低
- 适合研究自动驾驶远程操控界面的开发者参考
随着车辆自动化技术日益成熟，亟需具备稳健的远程监控与干预功能，以应对车辆故障、复杂路况或难以导航区域。这一角色转变——从持续驾驶员变为间歇性远程操作员——要求开发合适的交互界面。尽管已有部分界面被提出，但缺乏系统性比较。本研究设计、实现并评估了三种交互概念（路径规划、轨迹引导和航点引导），在包含23名参与者、最多四辆自动驾驶车辆同时请求的组内实验中进行测试。结果显示，路径规划概念最受青睐，其可用性最高，但满意度较低；轨迹引导虽解决请求最少，但响应效率最差。研究结果为面向远程辅助自动驾驶车辆的人机交互界面发展提供了重要参考。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
As vehicle automation technology continues to mature, there is a necessity for robust remote monitoring and intervention features. These are essential for intervening during vehicle malfunctions, challenging road conditions, or in areas that are difficult to navigate. This evolution in the role of the human operator - from a constant driver to an intermittent teleoperator - necessitates the development of suitable interaction interfaces. While some interfaces were suggested, a comparative study is missing. We designed, implemented, and evaluated three interaction concepts (path planning, trajectory guidance, and waypoint guidance) with up to four concurrent requests of automated vehicles in a within-subjects study with N=23 participants. The results showed a clear preference for the path planning concept. It also led to the highest usability but lower satisfaction. With trajectory guidance, the fewest requests were resolved. The study's findings contribute to the ongoing development of HMIs focused on the remote assistance of automated vehicles.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。