What passengers really want: Assessing the value of rail innovation to improve experiences

Technology has the potential to provide more up-to-date information and customised services to train passengers and therefore improve the rail journey experience. However, there is a lack knowledge about which innovations and services are preferred by the travelling public. The purpose of this study was to understand the value which passengers placed on technological innovations to improve the overall passenger journey experience. A conjoint analysis survey based on the best-worst scale of preference was developed to evaluate how passengers (N = 398) value different system features proposed to improve passenger experience in the UK. Results show that the automatic compensation for delayed or cancelled trains was valued the highest, and the ability to pre-order special services ranked as least value from a set of ten features. Additional results include the segmentation of responses according to passenger type (commuters, business and leisure) and the similarities and differences in responses from the public versus those working directly in the rail industry. The insights gained from this study suggest which features should be prioritised to improve rail passenger journey experiences

User expectations of partial driving automation capabilities and their effect on information design preferences in the vehicle

Partially automated vehicles present interface design challenges in ensuring the driver remains alert should the vehicle need to hand back control at short notice, but without exposing the driver to cognitive overload. To date, little is known about driver expectations of partial driving automation and whether this affects the information they require inside the vehicle. Twenty-five participants were presented with five partially automated driving events in a driving simulator. After each event, a semi-structured interview was conducted. The interview data was coded and analysed using grounded theory. From the results, two groupings of driver expectations were identified: High Information Preference (HIP) and Low Information Preference (LIP) drivers; between these two groups the information preferences differed. LIP drivers did not want detailed information about the vehicle presented to them, but the definition of partial automation means that this kind of information is required for safe use. Hence, the results suggest careful thought as to how information is presented to them is required in order for LIP drivers to safely using partial driving automation. Conversely, HIP drivers wanted detailed information about the system’s status and driving and were found to be more willing to work with the partial automation and its current limitations. It was evident that the drivers’ expectations of the partial automation capability differed, and this affected their information preferences. Hence this study suggests that HMI designers must account for these differing expectations and preferences to create a safe, usable system that works for everyone

Investigating what level of visual information inspires trust in a user of a highly automated vehicle

The aim of this research is to investigate whether visual feedback alone can affect a driver’s trust in an autonomous vehicle, and in particular, what level of feedback (no feedback vs. moderate feedback vs. high feedback) will evoke the appropriate level of trust. Before conducting the experiment, the Human Machine Interfaces (HMI) were piloted with two sets of six participants (before and after iterations), to ensure the meaning of the displays can be understood by all. A static driving simulator experiment was conducted with a sample of 30 participants (between 18 and 55). Participants completed two pre-study questionnaires to evaluate previous driving experience, and attitude to trust in automation. During the study, participants completed a trust questionnaire after each simulated scenario to assess their trust level in the autonomous vehicle and HMI displays, and on intention to use and acceptance. The participants were shown 10 different driving scenarios that lasted approximately 2 minutes each. Results indicated that the ‘high visual feedback’ group recorded the highest trust ratings, with this difference significantly higher than for the ‘no visual feedback’ group (U = .000; p = <0.001 < α) and the ‘moderate visual feedback’ group (U = .000; p = <0.001 < α). There is an upward inclination of trust in all groups due to familiarity to both the interfaces and driving simulator over time. Participants’ trust level was also influenced by the driving scenario, with trust reducing in all displays during safety verses non-safety-critical situations