ArticlePloS one2025
Sociotechnical imaginaries of autonomous vehicles: Comparing laboratory and online eye-tracking methods.
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 investigates sociotechnical imaginaries of autonomous vehicles (AVs) using a dual approach: in-lab and online eye-tracking experiments. We examine how cognitive engagement varies across hypothetical decision-making scenarios involving algorithmic failure of AVs. In comparison with non-AV scenarios. This article highlights the characteristics, advantages, and limitations of methods, emphasizing their complementary contributions to understanding how individuals perceive and engage with emerging technologies. The in-lab experiment revealed high-quality and precise data from a homogeneous sample, while the online experiment enabled us to scale the research and explore diverse sociotechnical imaginaries from a global sample through crowd-sourced platforms. Key findings show that both in-lab and online participants exhibited longer gaze durations at one point, predominantly longer in AV scenarios. However, a deeper analysis of overall cognitive engagement revealed that in-lab participants, with more concentrated sociotechnical imaginaries, were more focused on non-AV scenarios, indicating a stronger emphasis on human decision-making. In contrast, online participants, whose imaginaries may be shaped by global perspectives and diverse experiences with data and algorithms, displayed increased attention toward AV scenarios, with significant visual variations among participants, reflecting global interest or concern over high-stakes algorithmic decisions. These findings contribute to our understanding of how perception of AVs differs globally and offer insights into emerging concerns around algorithmic decision-making in everyday life.
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.