Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3610977.3634923acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Virtual Reality Framework for Human-Driver Interaction Research: Safe and Cost-Effective Data Collection

Published:11 March 2024Publication History

ABSTRACT

The advancement of automated driving technology has led to new challenges in the interaction between automated vehicles and human road users. However, there is currently no complete theory that explains how human road users interact with vehicles, and studying them in real-world settings is often unsafe and time-consuming. This study proposes a 3D Virtual Reality (VR) framework for studying how pedestrians interact with human-driven vehicles. The framework uses VR technology to collect data in a safe and cost-effective way, and deep learning methods are used to predict pedestrian trajectories. Specifically, graph neural networks have been used to model pedestrian future trajectories and the probability of crossing the road. The results of this study show that the proposed framework can be for collecting high-quality data on pedestrian-vehicle interactions in a safe and efficient manner. The data can then be used to develop new theories of human-vehicle interaction and aid the Autonomous Vehicles research.

References

  1. Alexandre Alahi, Kratarth Goel, Vignesh Ramanathan, Alexandre Robicquet, Li Fei-Fei, and Silvio Savarese. 2016. Social lstm: Human trajectory prediction in crowded spaces. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 961--971.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Austin Valentine Angulo, Erin Robartes, Xiang Guo, T Donna Chen, Arsalan Heydarian, and Brian L Smith. 2023. Demonstration of virtual reality simulation as a tool for understanding and evaluating pedestrian safety and perception at midblock crossings. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 20 (2023), 100844.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Rajaram Bhagavathula, Brian Williams, Justin Owens, and Ronald Gibbons. 2018. The reality of virtual reality: A comparison of pedestrian behavior in real and virtual environments. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 62. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2056-- 2060.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Zhe Cao, Gines Hidalgo, Tomas Simon, Shih-En Wei, and Yaser Sheikh. 2021. OpenPose: Realtime Multi-Person 2D Pose Estimation Using Part Affinity Fields. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 43, 1 (jan 2021), 172--186. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/TPAMI.2019.2929257Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ziyi Chang, George Alex Koulieris, and Hubert P. H. Shum. 2023. On the Design Fundamentals of Diffusion Models: A Survey. arXiv (2023). https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2306.04542 arXiv:arXiv:2306.04542 [cs.LG]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Shuchisnigdha Deb, Daniel W Carruth, and Christopher R Hudson. 2020. How communicating features can help pedestrian safety in the presence of self-driving vehicles: virtual reality experiment. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 50, 2 (2020), 176--186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Igor Doric, Anna-Katharina Frison, Philipp Wintersberger, Andreas Riener, Sebas- tian Wittmann, Matheus Zimmermann, and Thomas Brandmeier. 2016. A novel approach for researching crossing behavior and risk acceptance: The pedestrian simulator. In Adjunct proceedings of the 8th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. 39--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Arash Kalatian and Bilal Farooq. 2022. A context-aware pedestrian trajectory prediction framework for automated vehicles. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies 134 (2022), 103453.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Vineet Kosaraju, Amir Sadeghian, Roberto Martín-Martín, Ian Reid, Hamid Rezatofighi, and Silvio Savarese. 2019. Social-bigat: Multimodal trajectory fore- casting using bicycle-gan and graph attention networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. David Baranyai, Edgar Sokolovskij, and Ádám Török. 2017. Pedestrians' role in road accidents. International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering 7, 3 (2017), 328--341.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Kunming Li, Stuart Eiffert, Mao Shan, Francisco Gomez-Donoso, Stewart Worrall, and Eduardo Nebot. 2021. Attentional-GCNN: Adaptive pedestrian trajectory pre- diction towards generic autonomous vehicle use cases. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 14241--14247.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Régis Lobjois and Viola Cavallo. 2007. Age-related differences in street-crossing decisions: The effects of vehicle speed and time constraints on gap selection in an estimation task. Accident analysis & prevention 39, 5 (2007), 934--943.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Gustav Markkula, Ruth Madigan, Dimitris Nathanael, Evangelia Portouli, Yee Mun Lee, André Dietrich, Jac Billington, Anna Schieben, and Natasha Merat. 2020. Defining interactions: A conceptual framework for understanding inter- active behaviour in human and automated road traffic. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 21, 6 (2020), 728--752.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Abduallah Mohamed, Kun Qian, Mohamed Elhoseiny, and Christian Claudel. 2020. Social-stgcnn: A social spatio-temporal graph convolutional neural network for human trajectory prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 14424--14432.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Alejandra Ospina-Bohórquez, Sara Rodríguez-González, and Diego Vergara- Rodríguez. 2022. A Review on Multi-agent Systems and Virtual Reality. In Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence, Volume 1: 18th International Conference, Kenji Matsui, Sigeru Omatu, Tan Yigitcanlar, and Sara Rodríguez González (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 32--42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Daniel Perez, Mahmud Hasan, Yuzhong Shen, and Hong Yang. 2019. AR-PED: A framework of augmented reality enabled pedestrian-in-the-loop simulation. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 94 (2019), 237--249.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Amir Rasouli and John K Tsotsos. 2019. Autonomous vehicles that interact with pedestrians: A survey of theory and practice. IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems 21, 3 (2019), 900--918.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Amir Rasouli and John K. Tsotsos. 2020. Autonomous Vehicles That Interact With Pedestrians: A Survey of Theory and Practice. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 21, 3 (2020), 900--918.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Andreas Riegler, Andreas Riener, and Clemens Holzmann. 2021. A systematic review of virtual reality applications for automated driving: 2009--2020. Frontiers in human dynamics 3 (2021), 689856.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Keya Roy, Nam Hong Hoang, and Hai L. Vu. 2022. Modeling Autonomous Vehicles Deployment in a Multilane AV Zone With Mixed Traffic. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 23, 12 (2022), 23708--23720.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Adarsh Jagan Sathyamoorthy, Utsav Patel, Tianrui Guan, and Dinesh Manocha. 2020. Frozone: Freezing-free, pedestrian-friendly navigation in human crowds. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5, 3 (2020), 4352--4359.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Hubert P. H. Shum and Edmond S. L. Ho. 2012. Real-Time Physical Modelling of Character Movements with Microsoft Kinect. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (VRST '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 17--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Jianhua Sun, Yuxuan Li, Hao-Shu Fang, and Cewu Lu. 2021. Three steps to multimodal trajectory prediction: Modality clustering, classification and synthe- sis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 13250--13259.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. S. Suo, S. Regalado, S. Casas, and R. Urtasun. 2021. TrafficSim: Learning to Simu- late Realistic Multi-Agent Behaviors. In 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 10395--10404.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Kai Tian, Gustav Markkula, Chongfeng Wei, Yee Mun Lee, Ruth Madigan, Natasha Merat, and Richard Romano. 2022. Explaining unsafe pedestrian road crossing behaviours using a Psychophysics-based gap acceptance model. Safety Science 154 (2022), 105837.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Tram Thi Minh Tran, Callum Parker, and Martin Tomitsch. 2021. A review of virtual reality studies on autonomous vehicle--pedestrian interaction. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 51, 6 (2021), 641--652.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Shouwen Yao, Jiahao Zhang, Ziran Hu, Yu Wang, and Xilin Zhou. 2018. Autonomous-driving vehicle test technology based on virtual reality. The Journal of Engineering 2018, 16 (2018), 1768--1771.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Zhili Zhang, Songyang Han, Jiangwei Wang, and Fei Miao. 2023. Spatial-Temporal- Aware Safe Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning of Connected Autonomous Ve- hicles in Challenging Scenarios. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). 5574--5580.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Fengjiao Zou, Jennifer Ogle, Weimin Jin, Patrick Gerard, Daniel Petty, and Andrew Robb. 2023. Pedestrian Behavior Interacting with Autonomous Vehicles during Unmarked Midblock Multilane Crossings: Role of Infrastructure Design, AV Operations and Signaling. arXiv:2303.17717 [cs.ROGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Virtual Reality Framework for Human-Driver Interaction Research: Safe and Cost-Effective Data Collection

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      HRI '24: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
      March 2024
      982 pages
      ISBN:9798400703225
      DOI:10.1145/3610977

      Copyright © 2024 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 11 March 2024

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate242of1,000submissions,24%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)103
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)30

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader