针对行人年龄因素影响的eHMI速度显示设计探讨
A Study on eHMI Speed Display Design Considering the Influence of Pedestrian Age
摘要: 目的：针对L4/L5自动驾驶情境下不同年龄行人对eHMI速度信息界面理解是否一致的问题，比较青年与中老年群体的客观决策效率与主观体验，识别具有跨年龄适用性的界面形式。方法：采用标准化视频实验法，招募47名参与者并按年龄分为两组，在固定车辆运动学条件下呈现无eHMI、文字、图案、图文组合四种界面，记录过街决策时间并评估有效性、易理解性、安全感、使用意向，用混合重复测量方差分析与线性混合模型分析。结果：年龄对决策时间无显著主效应，但在主观评价上与界面类型存在显著交互：中老年组偏好直观的纯图案，青年组偏好图文组合。结论：年龄差异主要作用于界面偏好与体验，而非决策效率；区别于以往多局限于单一年龄或单一界面的研究，本文在统一运动学条件下对不同年龄群体与不同编码形式进行了系统比较，提出以直观图案为核心、适度补充文本的形式更具跨年龄适用性。
Abstract: Objective: To compare objective decision-making efficiency and subjective experience between younger and middle-aged/older pedestrians when interpreting eHMI speed displays in L4/L5 automated-driving scenarios, and identify display formats applicable across age groups. Methods: Forty-seven participants were classified into a younger group and a middle-aged/older group. They viewed standardized videos under fixed vehicle kinematics in four conditions: no eHMI, text, icon, and icon-text. Crossing decision time and 5-point ratings of perceived effectiveness, comprehensibility, safety, and intention to use were analyzed using a mixed-design repeated-measures ANOVA and linear mixed-effects models, respectively. Results: Age had no significant main effect on decision time, whereas significant age-by-interface interactions were found for all four subjective ratings. Descriptive patterns generally favored icons among middle-aged/older participants and icon-text displays among younger participants. Conclusion: Age differences primarily affected interface preference and experience rather than decision efficiency. By systematically comparing age groups and encoding formats under controlled kinematics, this study suggests that intuitive icons supplemented with carefully selected text may offer greater cross-age applicability.
文章引用：李玉琳, 徐聪. 针对行人年龄因素影响的eHMI速度显示设计探讨[J]. 交叉科学快报, 2026, 10(5): 1260-1267. https://doi.org/10.12677/isl.2026.105148

参考文献

[1] Noomwongs, N., Kitpramongsri, N., Chantranuwathana, S. and Phanomchoeng, G. (2025) Evaluating Visual eHMI Formats for Pedestrian Crossing Confirmation in Electric Autonomous Vehicles: A Comprehension-Time Study with Simulation and Preliminary Field Validation. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 16, Article 485.
https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj16090485
[2] Lau, M., Wilbrink, M. and Oehl, M. (2024) Matching vs. Mismatching Signals of External Human-Machine Interface and Vehicle Kinematics: An Examination of Pedestrian Crossing Behavior and Trust, Safety, and Affective Ratings in Interactions with Differently Sized Automated Vehicles. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 107, 1092-1104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2024.10.022
[3] Song, Y., Chen, X., Zhang, J., Tian, J., Zhang, L., Ma, G., et al. (2024) Road-Crossing Behavior and Safety of Pedestrians Facing Autonomous Vehicles with an Acceleration Indicator eHMI in VR Traffic Flow. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 107, 589-606.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2024.09.023
[4] Anic, A., McGuckian, T.B., Carrigan, A.J., Wilson, P., Greene, D.A., Duckworth, J., et al. (2026) Crossing Confidently: The Role of Walking Speed and Visual Exploration in Older Adults’ Street-Crossing Decisions. Safety Science, 198, Article ID: 107149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2026.107149
[5] Xu, Y., Aung, H.L., Hesam-Shariati, N., Keay, L., Sun, X., Phu, J., et al. (2024) Contrast Sensitivity, Visual Field, Color Vision, Motion Perception, and Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 25, Article ID: 105098.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2024.105098
[6] Dommes, A., Cavallo, V., Dubuisson, J., Tournier, I. and Vienne, F. (2014) Crossing a Two-Way Street: Comparison of Young and Old Pedestrians. Journal of Safety Research, 50, 27-34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2014.03.008
[7] Hensch, A., Kreißig, I., Beggiato, M. and Krems, J.F. (2022) The Effect of eHMI Malfunctions on Younger and Elderly Pedestrians’ Trust and Acceptance of Automated Vehicle Communication Signals. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 866475.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.866475
[8] Oxley, J.A., Ihsen, E., Fildes, B.N., Charlton, J.L. and Day, R.H. (2005) Crossing Roads Safely: An Experimental Study of Age Differences in Gap Selection by Pedestrians. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 37, 962-971.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.04.017
[9] 张惠玲, 彭丹, 庞鲜鲜. 基于眼动特征的信号交叉口老年人等待过街精神负荷分析[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2023, 23(24): 10530-10539.
[10] Eggenberger, P., Tomovic, S., Münzer, T. and de Bruin, E.D. (2017) Older Adults Must Hurry at Pedestrian Lights! A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Preferred and Fast Walking Speed under Single-and Dual-Task Conditions. PLOS ONE, 12, e0182180.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182180
[11] Carrigan, A., McGuckian, T.B., Prabhakharan, P., Tasnim, N., McCracken, G. and Bennett, J.M. (2025) Towards a Model for Understanding the Pedestrian Behaviours of Older Adults with and without Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 114, 1142-1160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2025.07.001
[12] Valos, N. and Bennett, J.M. (2023) The Relationship between Cognitive Functioning and Street-Crossing Behaviours in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 99, 356-373.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2023.10.018
[13] Man, S.S., Huang, C., Ye, Q., Chang, F. and Chan, A.H.S. (2025) Pedestrians’ Interaction with eHMI-Equipped Autonomous Vehicles: A Bibliometric Analysis and Systematic Review. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 209, Article ID: 107826.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2024.107826
[14] Bellet, T., Laurent, S., Bornard, J., Hoang, I. and Richard, B. (2022) Interaction between Pedestrians and Automated Vehicles: Perceived Safety of Yielding Behaviors and Benefits of an External Human-Machine Interface for Elderly People. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1021656.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1021656
[15] Sahaï, A., Puscasu, O. and Métayer, N. (2024). Age-Based Differences in Pedestrians’ Feeling of Trust and Safety When Crossing in Front of a Real Communicating Self-Driving Car during Daytime or Nighttime. AHFE International, Nice, 24-27 July 2024, 94-104.
https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1005468
[16] Lee, Y.M., Madigan, R., Wang, Y., Garcia, J., Qin, H., Srinivasan, A., et al. (2026) Crossing in the Dark: Investigating the Effect of Vehicle Kinematics and eHMI on Older Pedestrians’ Crossing Behavior in a Virtual Reality Experiment. Journal of Safety Research, 96, 315-328.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2026.01.012
[17] Pan, H., Payre, W., Xu, J. and Koppel, S. (2024) Age-Related Differences in Takeover Performance: A Comparative Analysis of Older and Younger Drivers in Prolonged Partially Automated Driving. Traffic Injury Prevention, 25, 968-975.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2024.2352788
[18] Lau, M., Nguyen, H.P., Jipp, M. and Oehl, M. (2024) From Visions to Reality: Investigating the Interplay of Vehicle Kinematics and Light-Band eHMI in a Real Vehicle Study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 103, 79-95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2024.03.004
[19] Eisma, Y.B., van Gent, L. and de Winter, J. (2023) Should an External Human-Machine Interface Flash or Just Show Text? A Study with a Gaze-Contingent Setup. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 97, 140-154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2023.07.005
[20] Eisele, D., Kraus, J., Schlemer, M.M. and Petzoldt, T. (2024) Should Automated Vehicles Communicate Their State or Intent? Effects of eHMI Activations and Non-Activations on Pedestrians’ Trust Formation and Crossing Behavior. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 84, 24405-24429.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-024-20497-0
[21] Hung, Y. and Tan, Y. (2024) How Symbol and Text Combine to Promote Sign Comprehension: Evidence from Eye-Tracking. Displays, 83, Article ID: 102709.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2024.102709
[22] Guo, J., Yuan, Q., Yu, J., Chen, X., Yu, W., Cheng, Q., et al. (2022) External Human-Machine Interfaces for Autonomous Vehicles from Pedestrians’ Perspective: A Survey Study. Sensors, 22, Article 3339.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s22093339
[23] Bindschädel, J., Weimann, P. and Kiesel, A. (2023) Using Ehmi, Acoustic Signal, and Pitch Motion to Communicate the Intention of Automated Vehicles to Pedestrians: A Wizard of Oz Study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 97, 59-72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2023.06.017
[24] Park, J., Kim, N., Park, S., Park, G., Jung, S. and Ji, Y.G. (2025) I’m Going to Stop, Will You Cross? The Impact of Vehicle’s eHMI on Pedestrian’s Decision-Making. In: Krömker, H., Ed., HCI in Mobility, Transport, and Automotive Systems. HCII 2025, Springer, 181-193.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-92692-1_11
[25] Zhao, X., Li, X., Rakotonirainy, A., Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Gruyer, D. and Delhomme, P. (2023) The ‘Invisible Gorilla’ during Pedestrian-AV Interaction: Effects of Secondary Tasks on Pedestrians’ Reaction to eHMIs. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 192, Article ID: 107246.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2023.107246
[26] Dang, M., Jin, Y., Hang, P., Crosato, L., Sun, Y. and Wei, C. (2024) Coupling Intention and Actions of Vehicle-Pedestrian Interaction: A Virtual Reality Experiment Study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 203, Article ID: 107639.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2024.107639
[27] Feng, Y., Xu, Z., Farah, H. and Arem, B.V. (2025) Does Another Pedestrian Matter? A Virtual Reality Study on the Interaction between Multiple Pedestrians and Autonomous Vehicles in Shared Space. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 26, 196-209.
https://doi.org/10.1109/tits.2024.3482558
[28] Devi Subramanian, L., O’Neal, E.E., Kim, N., Noonan, M., Plumert, J.M. and Kearney, J.K. (2024) Deciding When to Cross in Front of an Autonomous Vehicle: How Child and Adult Pedestrians Respond to eHMI Timing and Vehicle Kinematics. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 202, Article ID: 107567.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2024.107567
[29] Alhawiti, A., Kwigizile, V., Oh, J., Asher, Z.D., Hakimi, O., Aljohani, S., et al. (2024) The Effectiveness of eHMI Displays on Pedestrian-Autonomous Vehicle Interaction in Mixed-Traffic Environments. Sensors, 24, Article 5018.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s24155018
[30] Lau, M., Lee, J., Kitazaki, S., Daimon, T. and Oehl, M. (2024) Investigating Implicit and Explicit Communication of Highly Automated Vehicles in Japan: How Do Light-Band eHMIs Affect Pedestrians’ Willingness to Cross, Trust and Perceived Safety? Accident Analysis & Prevention, 207, Article ID: 107719.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2024.107719
[31] Albers, F., Trypke, M., Stebner, F., Wirth, J. and Plass, J.L. (2023) Different Types of Redundancy and Their Effect on Learning and Cognitive Load. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 339-352.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12592
[32] Brill, S., Payre, W., Debnath, A., Horan, B. and Birrell, S. (2023) External Human-Machine Interfaces for Automated Vehicles in Shared Spaces: A Review of the Human-Computer Interaction Literature. Sensors, 23, Article 4454.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s23094454