ArticleScientific reports2026
Neuroergonomic evaluation of risk-warning eHMI penetration rates in vehicle platoons: effects on pedestrians' mental workload, situation awareness, and gap acceptance.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The deployment of Level 4-5 autonomous vehicles (AVs) in real traffic environments presents significant challenges for pedestrian interaction, primarily due to the absence of human driver cues. To address this limitation, risk-warning external human-machine interfaces (eHMIs), which communicate dynamic crossing risks based on the AV's time-to-arrival (TTA), have received growing attention. However, given the visual complexity of real-world traffic and the potential transition from partial to full eHMI adoption within vehicle platoons, the cognitive impacts of such systems on pedestrians, particularly in terms of mental workload (MW) and situation awareness (SA), require further investigation. This study investigates the impact of three eHMI penetration rates-zero (all vehicles without eHMI), partial (half with and half without), and full (all vehicles with eHMI)-within vehicle platoons on pedestrians' MW, SA, and gap acceptance. To simulate realistic traffic conditions, vehicle speeds (30 km/h and 36 km/h) and temporal gap sizes (ranging from 2 to 6 s in 0.5-s increments) were randomized. A video-based experiment was conducted with 24 participants who simulated street-crossing decisions by selecting appropriate temporal gaps when encountering vehicle platoons. SA was assessed using the Situation Awareness Rating Technique (SART), and MW was evaluated through a concurrent oddball task, with P300 event-related potentials (ERPs) serving as indicators of residual attentional capacity. Results showed that full eHMI penetration resulted in significantly higher SA and lower MW compared to partial penetration condition. When compared to zero penetration, full eHMI penetration enhanced pedestrians' sensitivity to gap size, indicating that as the gap size increased, the probability of pedestrians crossing increased more sharply. Notably, this effect occurred without significantly altering MW or SA. In contrast, partial penetration condition led to pedestrians crossing less frequently when encountering vehicles equipped with eHMI and was associated with significantly higher MW and lower SA. These findings suggest that risk-warning eHMIs enhance pedestrian-AV interactions effectively under full penetration conditions. However, partial penetration may impair pedestrians' decision-making and cognitive performance, highlighting the importance of strategic planning during the transitional deployment phase of eHMIs.
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.