Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Guiding, not Driving: Design and Evaluation of a Command-Based User Interface for Teleoperation of Autonomous Vehicles

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper develops and tests a command-based tele-assistance interface in which remote operators guide autonomous vehicles through discrete high-level commands, and reports that expert teleoperators largely accept this paradigm as…

desk verdict A solid, honest design exploration of a command-based tele-assistance UI; the prototype and expert study are real contributions, but the evaluation is limited by static prototyping and an untested core assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00750 v1 pith:4PYYJV7L submitted 2025-02-02 cs.HC

Felix Tener , Joel Lanir This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords tele-assistanceautonomousvehiclesremoteoperationhigh-levelcommandsuserinterfacedesignusabilitystudytouchhuman-AIcollaboration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that tele-assistance, in which a remote human operator guides an autonomous vehicle by issuing discrete high-level commands instead of steering it continuously, is a viable and accepted way to handle edge-case road scenarios. The authors built a 175-screen interactive prototype of a tablet interface for a teleoperation station and evaluated it with 14 expert teleoperators across three simulated scenarios. Their central finding is that all but one participant considered command-based control realistic and desirable, with the caveat that some scenarios still call for direct tele-driving. If correct, the paper provides a first comprehensive design instance and a set of design guidelines for future tele-assistance user interfaces.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the contextual command menu: an assisting AI infers why the AV disengaged and presents a short list of high-level commands that resolve that specific scenario, with an 'All Commands' fallback for cases where diagnosis fails. Around it sit a control-owner indicator (Vehicle / Remote Assistant / Remote Driving), AR overlays for obstacle marking, brake visualization and trajectory projection, notifications in three levels, path plotting on a 2D map, and object selection for perception modification. The prototype itself, 175 simulated screens covering a police-blocked road, heavy-traffic integration, and static obstacles, carries the evaluation.

What would settle it

Run the same three edge cases with tele-assistance and with tele-driving in a dynamic or Wizard-of-Oz setup, measuring session duration, operator workload, and successful resolutions; the claim would be undercut if AVs frequently request assistance with an incorrect or empty contextual command set, or if expert operators show no measurable benefit from the command-based interface.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that remote operators can effectively 'guide, not drive' an AV: the vehicle remains responsible for low-level maneuvers while the human selects context-dependent high-level commands such as 'Bypass from Left,' 'Progress Slowly,' or 'Plot Alternative Route.' The interface presents these commands on a touch-based tablet, with a status bar showing who owns control, augmented-reality overlays marking obstacles and the AV's intended path, and notifications from an assisting AI agent. The evaluation's central result is that expert teleoperators accepted the approach: 13 of 14 participants said discrete-command control was realistic and desirable, and questionnaire scores (PSSUQ overall 2.775 on a 1-7 scale; Van der Laan usefulness 0.885 and satisfaction 1.053 on a -2 to 2 scale) point to good usability and acceptance. Participants also exposed boundary conditions: commands must be contextually relevant, some situations require immediate-action commands or tele-driving, and the interface should avoid a game-like feel.

Load-bearing premise

The design assumes that when an AV cannot resolve a scenario, it will usually still recognize why it got stuck and can map that reason to a small set of usable high-level commands; if AVs often fail at self-diagnosis, the contextual command menus lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If expert operators accept discrete commands, tele-assistance can shorten teleoperation sessions because guiding takes less time than continuous driving.
  • Because the operator is decoupled from low-level maneuvers, one operator may supervise multiple AVs while a command is being executed, supporting a one-to-many operational model.
  • Designers should make control ownership visible at all times and should let operators switch easily to tele-driving for scenarios such as merging into dense traffic.
  • The system should suggest which operational mode fits each edge case, rather than leaving the choice entirely to the operator.
  • Command menus must be contextually tied to the detected scenario; irrelevant suggestions, such as a U-turn in congested traffic, reduce acceptance.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the acceptance result suggests that the main obstacle to tele-assistance is not operator willingness but the AV's ability to diagnose its own disengagement reasons reliably enough to populate contextual menus.
  • Beyond the paper, a direct testable extension is a live or Wizard-of-Oz comparison of tele-assistance versus tele-driving on session duration, operator workload, and successful resolutions; the paper plans such a study, and its central claim stands or falls on that comparison.
  • Beyond the paper, the control-owner and ODD-override discussion implies a legal question the paper leaves open: if a remote operator authorizes crossing a continuous separation lane, the liability framework must be defined before deployment.
  • Beyond the paper, the sensor-fusion 'world view' that participants praised may be the hardest component to realize in practice, as one participant noted; whether the interface's benefits survive without that view is an open testable question.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports on the design and evaluation of a command-based tele-assistance user interface (UI) for remote operation of autonomous vehicles (AVs). The authors synthesize prior work on teleoperation, tele-assistance, and high-level command languages to build a 175-screen InVision prototype based on simulated edge-case scenarios. They evaluate the prototype with 14 expert teleoperators using think-aloud tasks, the PSSUQ usability questionnaire, the Van Der Laan acceptance questionnaire, and summative interviews, and they derive a set of design insights and guidelines for future command-based tele-assistance interfaces.

Significance. If its central assumptions hold, the paper provides a valuable design exemplar for an under-explored interaction paradigm: the 'guiding, not driving' approach. The strengths are the systematic Research through Design process, the grounding of the design in previously published command taxonomies, the relatively large expert sample for a qualitative usability study, and the candid discussion of limitations and open questions in Section 6. The qualitative themes—such as the distinction between injection-of-control and immediate-action commands, the dominance of the video feed, and the need to increase the operator's feeling of control—are practical and plausible. However, the evidence for the core 'contextual command' mechanism is indirect because the prototype is static and the assumption that AVs can reliably diagnose their own disengagement reasons is not tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, paragraph 3; Section 4.2.3] The design is founded on the assumption that an AV that cannot resolve a scenario will 'in most cases' recognize the reason for the disengagement and that each recognized reason can be mapped to a set of high-level commands. This assumption is load-bearing: the Contextual Commands tab, the assisting-AI notifications (§4.5), and the claimed efficiency advantage of tele-assistance all depend on presenting the correct commands automatically. The cited references [42,55] are general surveys of AI in AVs and do not provide evidence that failure diagnosis is accurate or that edge-case causes are single clean labels. The evaluation (§6.1) used a static prototype in which every disengagement cause was pre-defined and correctly presented, so the study never exercised a misdiagnosis, an irrelevant contextual menu, or a scene with multiple simultaneous factors. The paper should either provide empirical or literature support for this assumption, or explicitly reframe the contribution as conditional on it, and should add at least one evaluation scenario where the AI's suggested commands are wrong or absent to test the fallback 'All Commands' path.
  2. [Section 5.2.2, Tables 3 and 4] The quantitative usability evidence is incompletely reported. Table 4, which is meant to present item-level PSSUQ responses, is empty in the manuscript, so the reader cannot verify the aggregated scores in Table 3. The paper also does not state how the OVERALL, SYSUSE, INFOQUAL, and INTERQUAL scores were recomputed after removing items 7 and 9, nor does it provide any inferential statistics (e.g., a one-sample test against the Sauro-Lewis benchmark values) to support the claim that the results show 'a high correlation to the benchmark.' Given n=14 and the static prototype, the descriptive statistics and qualitative findings are the main evidence, and the benchmark comparison should be presented as suggestive rather than as statistical confirmation. The authors should either provide the full item-level data and an explicit scoring method, or clearly label the quantitative results as descriptive only.
  3. [Section 5.1.1 and Section 5.2.1] The participant sample is biased toward the design concept under evaluation. Participants were recruited 'among experts of a large consortium focusing on developing command-and-control systems,' and the interface itself is built on the authors' own previously published command language [65]. The paper reports that all but one participant found discrete high-level commands realistic and desirable, but it does not discuss how this sample's prior exposure to command-based control paradigms may inflate acceptance relative to a general teleoperator population. This self-referentiality should be acknowledged as a limitation, and the related claims in the Abstract and Conclusion about 'a strong preference among expert teleoperators' should be tempered accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2.3] The phrase 'Withing-between lane placement' appears to contain a typo; it should likely read 'Within-between lane placement.'
  2. [Section 5.2.1 and Appendix A] Participant identifiers are used inconsistently: the text sometimes refers to 'P6', 'P9', 'P12', 'P14' and at other times to 'RO1', 'RO7', etc.; Appendix A similarly mixes 'P1' and 'RO1'. The authors should use a single consistent identifier scheme throughout.
  3. [Section 5.2.2] The empty Table 4 is a significant presentation problem; if it cannot be populated, it should be removed or replaced with a summary of item-level statistics in the text.
  4. [Section 6.1] The sentence 'because the feedback from a live simulation was missing' is grammatically awkward and should be revised for clarity.
  5. [Section 7 (Conclusion)] The conclusion states that the prototype was 'rigorously testing' (sic), but the evaluation is a usability study of a static click-through prototype without a live system; 'rigorously' is overstated and should be replaced with a more measured description.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the interface evaluation is empirically self-contained; the self-cited command language [65] is a design input, not a predicted outcome.

full rationale

The paper contains no formal derivation whose conclusion equals an input. Its central results are participant-reported acceptance and usability measures (PSSUQ, VDL) collected from 14 expert teleoperators, and those results could in principle have been negative. The key design assumption that an AV will 'in most cases, still recognize the reason for the disengagement' (Section 3) is explicitly labeled 'An assumption we made in our design,' not a validated finding, and the paper provides a fallback: the 'All Commands' tab is described as 'especially useful in cases where the AI fails to diagnose the reason for the intervention' (Section 4.2.3). Section 6.2 further plans a Wizard-of-Oz comparative study to validate time, workload, and safety claims, acknowledging they are not established here. The command set and scenarios are adopted from the authors' own prior work [65], which is a self-citation and is load-bearing for the prototype's content; however, the acceptance result is not derived from that citation—participants reacted to the prototype itself, and no prediction is fitted to the same data that generated the commands. The design insights are produced from the same study that evaluates the design, which is a methodological limitation rather than a circular reduction, because the paper does not present those insights as independently validated. Recruitment from a command-and-control-oriented consortium is a sampling consideration, not a definitional reduction. Overall, no step in the paper reduces a claimed prediction to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities are present. The central design rests on domain assumptions about AV self-diagnosis, the sufficiency of the pre-defined command set, the representativeness of the expert sample, and the validity of the usability instruments.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AVs that request assistance will, in most cases, correctly recognize the reason for disengagement.
    Section 3 states this explicitly as an assumption for the design.
  • domain assumption The high-level command set from Tener and Lanir [65] is sufficient to resolve the selected edge-case scenarios.
    Section 4.1 says the authors adopted commands found effective in that prior study.
  • domain assumption The 14 recruited experts are representative of future AV teleoperators.
    Section 5.1.1 describes a consortium-based and snowball-recruited sample with varied teleoperation backgrounds; this assumption is not independently validated.
  • domain assumption PSSUQ and VDL questionnaires provide valid measures of usability and acceptance in this context.
    Section 5.2.2 applies these instruments without validating them for tele-assistance interfaces.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Guiding, not Driving: Design and Evaluation of a Command-Based User Interface for Teleoperation of Autonomous Vehicles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4PYYJV7L

@misc{pith2026250200750,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Guiding, not Driving: Design and Evaluation of a Command-Based User Interface for Teleoperation of Autonomous Vehicles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4PYYJV7L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00750}
}
read the original abstract

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are rapidly evolving as an innovative mode of transportation. However, the consensus in both industry and academia is that AVs cannot independently resolve all traffic scenarios. Consequently, the need for remote human assistance becomes clear. To enable the widespread integration of AVs on public roadways, it is imperative to develop novel models for remote operation. One such model is tele-assistance, which promotes delegating low-level maneuvers to automation through high-level directives. Our study investigates the design and evaluation of a new command-based tele-assistance user interface for the teleoperation of AVs. First, by integrating various control paradigms and interaction concepts, we created a simulation-based, high-fidelity interactive prototype consisting of 175 screens. Next, we conducted a comprehensive usability study with 14 expert teleoperators to assess the acceptance and usability of the system. Finally, we formulated high-level insights and guidelines for designing command-based user interfaces for the remote operation of AVs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00750 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left – schematic drawing of teleoperation via a steering wheel and pedals (tele-driving). Right –teleoperation via high-level commands (tele-assistance). Tele-assistance introduces a different paradigm in which humans provide guidance-level input to an automated system. In this model, the RO delegates the execution of low-level maneuvers to the AV, issuing high-level directives through a specialized interface [19]. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left - A proposed teleoperation station that incorporates both tele-driving (a steering wheel and pedals) and tele-assistance (touch-based tablet) components, as well as screens with real-time video feeds from front and back cameras. Right - A tablet based tele-assistance user interface that incorporates contextual high-level commands. Resolving possible edge cases using tele-assistance is likely faster and safer th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. presents the main screen of the tablet-based tele-assistance UI. It is divided into four major areas: the upper status bar, the remote environment representation, the contextual command menu, and the bottom navigation bar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A User-Centered Teleoperation GUI for Automated Vehicles: Identifying and Evaluating Information Requirements for Remote Driving and Assistance

    cs.HC 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A phase-adaptive teleoperation GUI, showing fewer elements during autonomous driving, scored higher on usability and task time than a static GUI in a click-dummy study.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [65]

    Felix Tener and Joel Lanir. 2024. Devising a High-Level Command Language for the Teleoperation of Autonomous Vehicles. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2359224

    work page arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Oscar Amador, Maytheewat Aramrattana, and Alexey Vinel. 2022. A Survey on Remote Operation of Road Vehicles. IEEE Access 10: 130135–130154. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3229168

    arXiv 2022

  3. [2]

    Cardoso, Avelino Forechi, Luan Jesus, Rodrigo Berriel, Thiago M

    Claudine Badue, Rânik Guidolini, Raphael Vivacqua Carneiro, Pedro Azevedo, Vinicius B. Cardoso, Avelino Forechi, Luan Jesus, Rodrigo Berriel, Thiago M. Paixão, Filipe Mutz, Lucas de Paula Veronese, Thiago Oliveira-Santos, and Alberto F. De Souza. 2021. Self-driving cars: A survey. Expert Systems with Applications 165, August 2020: 113816. https://doi.org/...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [3]

    Bazilinskyy, S

    P. Bazilinskyy, S. M. Petermeijer, V. Petrovych, D. Dodou, and J. C.F. de Winter. 2018. Take-over requests in highly automated driving: A crowdsourcing survey on auditory, vibrotactile, and visual displays. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 56: 82–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.04.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.trf.2018.04.001 2018

  5. [4]

    Taxonomy and Survey on Remote Human Input Systems for Driving Automation Systems

    Daniel Bogdoll, Stefan Orf, Lars Töttel, and J. Marius Zöllner. 2021. Taxonomy and Survey on Remote Human Input Systems for Driving Automation Systems. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/2109.08599

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  6. [5]

    Boll, Wilko Heuten, Heinrich H

    Shadan Sadeghian Borojeni, Susanne C.J. Boll, Wilko Heuten, Heinrich H. Bülthoff, and Lewis Chuang. 2018. Feel the movement: Real motion influences responses to Take-over requests in highly automated vehicles. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings 2018-April: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173820

    arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 2006

  8. [7]

    Koen de Clercq, Andre Dietrich, Juan Pablo Núñez Velasco, Joost de Winter, and Riender Happee. 2019. External Human-Machine Interfaces on Automated Vehicles: Effects on Pedestrian Crossing Decisions. Human Factors 61, 8: 1353–1370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819836343

    doi:10.1177/0018720819836343 2019

Show all 69 references
  1. [8]

    Mark Colley and Enrico Rukzio. 2020. A Design Space for External Communication of Autonomous Vehicles. Proceedings - 12th International ACM Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, AutomotiveUI 2020: 212–

    2020

  2. [9]

    Dixit, Sai Chand, and Divya J

    Vinayak V. Dixit, Sai Chand, and Divya J. Nair. 2016. Autonomous vehicles: Disengagements, accidents and reaction times. PLoS ONE 11, 12: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168054

    2016 doi

  3. [10]

    Grace Eden, Benjamin Nanchen, Randolf Ramseyer, and Florian Eveìquoz. 2017. On the road with an autonomous passenger shuttle: Integration in public spaces. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 1569–1576. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053126

    2017

  4. [11]

    Y. B. Eisma, S. van Bergen, S. M. ter Brake, M. T.T. Hensen, W. J. Tempelaar, and J. C.F. de Winter. 2020. External human- machine interfaces: The effect of display location on crossing intentions and eye movements. Information (Switzerland) 11, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11010013

    2020 doi

  5. [12]

    Bengt Escher, Jakob Peintner, and Andreas Riener. 2024. Beyond Automation: Exploring Passenger Cooperation and Perception in Teleoperated Shared Automated Vehicles (SAVs). In IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Proceedings, 1246–1251. https://doi.org/10.1109/IV55156.2024.10588392

    2024

  6. [13]

    Fagnant and Kara Kockelman

    Daniel J. Fagnant and Kara Kockelman. 2015. Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 77: 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.003 22

    2015 doi

  7. [14]

    Francesca Favarò, Sky Eurich, and Nazanin Nader. 2018. Autonomous vehicles’ disengagements: Trends, triggers, and regulatory limitations. Accident Analysis and Prevention 110: 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.11.001

    2018 doi

  8. [15]

    Johannes Feiler, Simon Hoffmann, and Frank Diermeyer. 2020. Concept of a Control Center for an Automated Vehicle Fleet. 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, ITSC 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC45102.2020.9294411

    2020

  9. [16]

    Jiacheng Feng, Shengbo Yu, Guihua Chen, Weijie Gong, Qiao Li, Juejian Wang, and Haiting Zhan. 2020. Disengagement causes analysis of automated driving system. Proceedings - 2020 3rd World Conference on Mechanical Engineering and Intelligent Manufacturing, WCMEIM 2020: 36–39. h...

    2020

  10. [17]

    Hanebeck

    Michael Fennel, Antonio Zea, and Uwe D. Hanebeck. 2021. Haptic-guided path generation for remote car-like vehicles. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6, 2: 4088–4095. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2021.3067846

    2021

  11. [18]

    Communications in Computer and Information Science 2118 Editorial Board Members

    Joaquim Filipe, Ashish Ghosh, and Lizhu Zhou. Communications in Computer and Information Science 2118 Editorial Board Members. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com

  12. [19]

    Frank Ole Flemisch, Klaus Bengler, Heiner Bubb, Hermann Winner, and Ralph Bruder. 2014. Towards cooperative guidance and control of highly automated vehicles: H-Mode and Conduct-by-Wire. Ergonomics 57, 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.869355

    2014

  13. [20]

    Franke, Adrian Kohler, and Annika Elze

    Ingmar S. Franke, Adrian Kohler, and Annika Elze. 2021. Control the Autonomous - User Interfaces for Monitoring and Dispatching Autonomous Vehicles. In IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Proceedings, ITSC, 2292–2297. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC48978.2021.9564635

    2021

  14. [21]

    Jean Michael Georg and Frank DIermeyer. 2019. An adaptable and immersive real time interface for resolving system limitations of automated vehicles with teleoperation. Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 2019-Octob: 2659–2664....

    2019

  15. [22]

    Jean Michael Georg, Johannes Feiler, Frank DIermeyer, and Markus Lienkamp. 2018. Teleoperated Driving, a Key Technology for Automated Driving? Comparison of Actual Test Drives with a Head Mounted Display and Conventional Monitors∗. IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation...

    2018

  16. [23]

    Noah Goodall. 2020. Non-technological challenges for the remote operation of automated vehicles. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 142, March: 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.09.024

    2020 doi

  17. [24]

    Google Design. 2018. Design is Autonomous. Retrieved December 30, 2024 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLEiBGPrNI

    2018

  18. [26]

    Gaetano Graf, Henri Palleis, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2020. A Design Space for Advanced Visual Interfaces for Teleoperated Autonomous Vehicles. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. https://doi.org/10.1145/3399715.3399942

    2020

  19. [27]

    GreyB. 2021. Top 30 Self Driving Technology and Car Companies. Retrieved from https://www.greyb.com/autonomous-vehicle- companies/#

    2021

  20. [28]

    Azra Habibovic, Jonas Andersson, Victor Malmsten Lundgren, Maria Klingegård, Cristofer Englund, and Sofia Larsson. 2019. External Vehicle Interfaces for Communication with Other Road Users? In Road Vehicle Automation 5. Springer International Publishing, 91–102. https://doi.or...

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Kasper Hornbæk. 2006. Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 64, 2: 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.06.002

    2006 doi

  22. [30]

    Rasheed Hussain and Sherali Zeadally. 2019. Autonomous Cars: Research Results, Issues, and Future Challenges. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials 21, 2: 1275–1313. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2018.2869360 23

    2019

  23. [31]

    IEEE Staff. 2010. 2010 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium. I E E E

    2010

  24. [32]

    InVision

    InVision. InVision. Retrieved December 25, 2024 from https://www.invisionapp.com/

    2024

  25. [33]

    Kauer, M

    M. Kauer, M. Schreiber, and R. Bruder. 2010. How to conduct a car? A design example for maneuver based driver-vehicle interaction. In 2010 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 1214–1221. https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2010.5548099

    2010

  26. [34]

    Carmen Kettwich and Annika Dreßler. 2020. Requirements of Future Control Centers in Public Transport. Adjunct Proceedings - 12th International ACM Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, AutomotiveUI 2020: 69–73. https://doi.org/10.1145...

    2020

  27. [35]

    Carmen Kettwich, Andreas Schrank, and Michael Oehl. 2021. Teleoperation of highly automated vehicles in public transport: User- centered design of a human-machine interface for remote-operation and its expert usability evaluation. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 5, 5. ...

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    Khattak, Michael D

    Zulqarnain H. Khattak, Michael D. Fontaine, and Brian L. Smith. 2021. Exploratory Investigation of Disengagements and Crashes in Autonomous Vehicles under Mixed Traffic: An Endogenous Switching Regime Framework. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 22, 12: 7...

    2021

  29. [37]

    Comparison of Waymo Rider-Only Crash Data to Human Benchmarks at 7.1 Million Miles

    Kristofer D Kusano, John M Scanlon, Yin-Hsiu Chen, Timothy L Mcmurry, Ruoshu Chen, Tilia Gode, and Trent Victor. Comparison of Waymo Rider-Only Crash Data to Human Benchmarks at 7.1 Million Miles

  30. [38]

    Jinke D Van Der Laan, Adriaan Heino, and Dick De Waard. 1997. A SIMPLE PROCEDURE FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF ACCEPTANCE OF ADVANCED TRANSPORT TELEMATICS

    1997

  31. [39]

    James R. Lewis. 2002. Psychometric Evaluation of the PSSUQ Using Data from Five Years of Usability Studies. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 14, 3–4: 463–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2002.9669130

    2002

  32. [40]

    PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION OF THE POST-STUDY SYSTEM USABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE: THE PSSUQ

    James R Lewis. PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION OF THE POST-STUDY SYSTEM USABILITY QUESTIONNAIRE: THE PSSUQ

  33. [41]

    Auger, Mark Sullman, Huaji Wang, Laura Millen Dutka, Lee Skrypchuk, and Alexandros Mouzakitis

    Chen Lv, Dongpu Cao, Yifan Zhao, Daniel J. Auger, Mark Sullman, Huaji Wang, Laura Millen Dutka, Lee Skrypchuk, and Alexandros Mouzakitis. 2018. Analysis of autopilot disengagements occurring during autonomous vehicle testing. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica 5, 1: 58–68. ...

    2018

  34. [42]

    Yifang Ma, Zhenyu Wang, Hong Yang, and Lin Yang. 2020. Artificial intelligence applications in the development of autonomous vehicles: A survey. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica 7, 2: 315–329. https://doi.org/10.1109/JAS.2020.1003021

    2020

  35. [43]

    Domagoj Majstorovic, Simon Hoffmann, Florian Pfab, Andreas Schimpe, Maria-Magdalena Wolf, and Frank Diermeyer. 2022. Survey on Teleoperation Concepts for Automated Vehicles. https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC53654.2022.9945267

    2022

  36. [44]

    do You Want to Drive Together?

    Bhavana Malve, Jakob Peintner, Shadan Sadeghian, and Andreas Riener. 2023. “do You Want to Drive Together?” - A Use Case Analysis on Cooperative, Automated Driving. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 209–214. https://doi.org/10.1145/3581961.3609871

    2023

  37. [45]

    Mario Herger. 2022. 2021 Disengagement Report from California. Retrieved from https://thelastdriverlicenseholder.com/2022/02/09/2021-disengagement-report-from-california/

    2022

  38. [46]

    Vivien Melcher, Stefan Rauh, Frederik Diederichs, Harald Widlroither, and Wilhelm Bauer. 2015. Take-Over Requests for Automated Driving. Procedia Manufacturing 3, Ahfe: 2867–2873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.788

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    Adam Millard-Ball. 2018. Pedestrians, Autonomous Vehicles, and Cities. Journal of Planning Education and Research 38, 1: 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X16675674

    2018 doi

  40. [48]

    Walter Morales-Alvarez, Oscar Sipele, Régis Léberon, Hadj Hamma Tadjine, and Cristina Olaverri-Monreal. 2020. Automated driving: A literature review of the take over request in conditional automation. Electronics (Switzerland) 9, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9122087

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    Oren Musicant, Haneen Farah, David Shinar, and Christian Collet. 2021. Editorial: Driver Behavior and Performance in an Age of Increasingly Instrumented Vehicles. Frontiers in Psychology 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.715239 24

    2021

  42. [50]

    Clare Mutzenich, Szonya Durant, Shaun Helman, and Polly Dalton. 2021. Updating our understanding of situation awareness in relation to remote operators of autonomous vehicles. Cognitive research: principles and implications 6, 1: 1–17

    2021

  43. [51]

    Santhanakrishnan Narayanan, Emmanouil Chaniotakis, and Constantinos Antoniou. 2020. Shared autonomous vehicle services: A comprehensive review. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 111, 255–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.12.008

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    Frederik Naujoks, Yannick Forster, Katharina Wiedemann, and Alexandra Neukum. 2017. A human-machine interface for cooperative highly automated driving. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 484: 585–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-41682-3_49

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    Stefan Neumeier, Philipp Wintersberger, Anna Katharina Frison, Armin Becher, Christian Facchi, and Andreas Riener. 2019. Teleoperation: The Holy Grail to solve problems of automated driving? Sure, but latency matters. Proceedings - 11th International ACM Conference on Automoti...

    2019

  46. [54]

    Mie Nørgaard and Kasper Hornbaek. 2006. What Do Usability Evaluators Do in Practice? An Explorative Study of Think-Aloud Testing

    2006

  47. [55]

    Scott Drew Pendleton, Hans Andersen, Xinxin Du, Xiaotong Shen, Malika Meghjani, You Hong Eng, Daniela Rus, and Marcelo H. Ang. 2017. Perception, planning, control, and coordination for autonomous vehicles. Machines 5, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines5010006

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    Ioannis Politis, Stephen Brewster, and Frank Pollick. 2015. Language-based multimodal displays for the handover of control in autonomous cars. c: 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2799250.2799262

    2015

  49. [57]

    Morales, Samadrita Das, Aaron Steinfeld, and Jodi Forlizzi

    Samantha Reig, Selena Norman, Cecilia G. Morales, Samadrita Das, Aaron Steinfeld, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2018. A field study of pedestrians and autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings - 10th International ACM Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applicati...

    2018

  50. [58]

    SAE. 2018. Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles

    2018

  51. [59]

    Jeff Sauro and James R Lewis. 2016. Quantifying the user experience: Practical statistics for user research. Morgan Kaufmann

    2016

  52. [60]

    Dmitrij Schitz, Gaetano Graf, Dominik Rieth, and Harald Aschemann. 2020. Corridor-Based Shared Autonomy for Teleoperated Driving. IFAC-PapersOnLine 53, 2: 15368–15373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2020.12.2351

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    Andreas Schrank, Fabian Walocha, Stefan Brandenburg, and Michael Oehl. 2024. Human-centered design and evaluation of a workplace for the remote assistance of highly automated vehicles. Cognition, Technology and Work 26, 2: 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-024-00753-x

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    School of Electrical Engineering, IEEE Communications Society

    Telecommunications Society, Univerzitet u Beogradu. School of Electrical Engineering, IEEE Communications Society. Serbia & Montenegro Chapter, and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Sensors and Sensor Fusion in Autonomous Vehicles

  55. [63]

    Felix Tener and Joel Lanir. 2022. Driving from a Distance: Challenges and Guidelines for Autonomous Vehicle Teleoperation Interfaces. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501827

    2022

  56. [64]

    Felix Tener and Joel Lanir. 2023. Investigating intervention road scenarios for teleoperation of autonomous vehicles. Multimedia Tools and Applications. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-17851-z

    2023 doi

  57. [66]

    Yohai Trabelsi, Or Shabat, Joel Lanir, Oleg Maksimov, and Sarit Kraus. 2023. Advice Provision in Teleoperation of Autonomous Vehicles. In International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Proceedings IUI, 750–761. https://doi.org/10.1145/3581641.3584068

    2023

  58. [67]

    De Jong Yeong, Gustavo Velasco-hernandez, John Barry, and Joseph Walsh. 2021. Sensor and sensor fusion technology in autonomous vehicles: A review. Sensors 21, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21062140 25

    2021 doi

  59. [68]

    Tao Zhang. 2020. Toward Automated Vehicle Teleoperation: Vision, Opportunities, and Challenges. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 7, 12: 11347–11354. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2020.3028766

    2020

  60. [69]

    Microphone

    John Zimmerman and Jodi Forlizzi. 2011. Research through Design: Method for Interaction Design Research in HCI. Chi 2011: 167–189. APPENDIX A The following table summarizes various usability issues that were discovered during our study and are specific to the presented user in...

    2011

  61. [222]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/3409120.3410646

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.