ArticleScientific reports2023
Rethinking infrastructure design: evaluating pedestrians and VRUs' psychophysiological and behavioral responses to different roadway designs.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Use of Virtual Reality to Alter Physical Activity by Targeting the Built Environment.Current environmental health reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The integration of human-centric approaches has gained more attention recently due to more automated systems being introduced into our built environments (buildings, roads, vehicles, etc.), which requires a correct understanding of how humans perceive such systems and respond to them. This paper introduces an Immersive Virtual Environment-based method to evaluate the infrastructure design with psycho-physiological and behavioral responses from the vulnerable road users, especially for pedestrians. A case study of pedestrian mid-block crossings with three crossing infrastructure designs (painted crosswalk, crosswalk with flashing beacons, and a smartphone app for connected vehicles) are tested. Results from 51 participants indicate there are differences between the subjective and objective measurement. A higher subjective safety rating is reported for the flashing beacon design, while the psychophysiological and behavioral data indicate that the flashing beacon and smartphone app are similar in terms of crossing behaviors, eye tracking measurements, and heart rate. In addition, the smartphone app scenario appears to have a lower stress level as indicated by eye tracking data, although many participants do not have prior experience with it. Suggestions are made for the implementation of new technologies, which can increase public acceptance of new technologies and pedestrian safety in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.