ArticlePloS one2025
Influence of vehicle expertise on acceleration profile preferences in electric vehicles.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examines how professional expertise influences acceleration profile preferences by comparing evaluations from development experts in internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) and electric vehicles (EVs). Subjective evaluations were conducted under light and middle tip-in acceleration conditions, where participants assessed five distinct acceleration profiles defined by maximum jerk, acceleration gradient, and jerk kurtosis. Results indicated that ICEV experts preferred profiles emphasizing stability and smooth transitions, while EV experts showed more balanced preferences for responsiveness and smoothness. Under light tip-in acceleration, ICEV experts demonstrated strong negative correlations between subjective preference and maximum jerk (r = -0.85) and jerk kurtosis (r = -0.75), indicating aversion to sharp transient dynamics. EV experts showed weaker correlations (r = -0.26 and r = -0.63, respectively), suggesting more flexible perception of these characteristics. Under middle tip-in acceleration, EV experts displayed strong negative correlations with maximum jerk (r = -0.82) and jerk kurtosis (r = -0.89), while ICEV experts exhibited negligible or weak associations with these parameters. These findings demonstrate that professional background significantly influences acceleration profile preferences, with ICEV experts valuing traditional driving dynamics and EV experts accepting more responsive characteristics typical of electric drivetrains. The results offer practical guidelines to improve user satisfaction and facilitate a smoother transition from ICEVs to EVs by aligning vehicle drivability characteristics with different user expectations based on their professional expertise and driving experience.
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.