Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 39 references

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

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A teleoperation GUI that adapts to the task beats a static full-information interface, with significantly higher usability scores and faster task completion in a click-dummy study of remote assistance.

desk verdict Useful element catalogue and process model for teleoperation GUIs, but the static-vs-dynamic comparison is confounded by fixed presentation order and should be read as a pilot, not proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21563 v1 pith:27VY5UDV submitted 2025-04-30 cs.HC

Maria-Magdalena Wolf , Henrik Schmidt , Michael Christl , Jana Fank , Frank Diermeyer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords teleoperationautomatedvehiclesgraphicaluserinterfacesituationalawarenessremoteassistancedrivingusabilityevaluationphase-adaptive
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 develops a graphical user interface for remotely operating and assisting automated vehicles, and tests whether showing fewer information elements during autonomous driving improves the interface. The authors first map the teleoperation process through interviews with nine experts, who rated the relevance of 57 informational elements across five process phases. From those ratings they built two click-dummy GUIs: a static version that always shows the full information set, and a dynamic version that hides low-relevance elements while the vehicle drives itself. In an online study with 36 participants, the dynamic GUI scored significantly higher on the System Usability Scale and produced significantly faster waypoint-based task completion than the static GUI. The result suggests that phase-adaptive information display is a workable design principle for teleoperation interfaces, with follow-up testing in a real vehicle still needed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 'dynamic GUI': a phase-adaptive interface that changes which supplemental informational elements are displayed as the process moves through five teleoperation phases (autonomous driving, transition to teleoperation, teleoperation, transition back, autonomous driving). During autonomous monitoring it shows a reduced set of elements rated as merely nice-to-have; during active teleoperation it shows the full set rated as necessary. The element set itself comes from a morphological box of 57 informational categories, filtered by expert ratings on a 0-2 necessity scale, and implemented as an interactive click-dummy in which participants advance a simulated vehicle by clicking waypoints on still photos.

What would settle it

Run the static and dynamic GUIs with trained remote operators controlling a real vehicle (or a high-fidelity simulator with live video and realistic latency); if the dynamic GUI no longer yields higher SUS scores and faster task completion, the central advantage claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a teleoperation GUI which adapts its displayed information to the current phase of the human-vehicle interaction—showing a rich set of elements only during active teleoperation and a reduced set while the vehicle drives autonomously—is more usable and more efficient than a static GUI that keeps the full set visible at all times. Evidence comes from a click-dummy study of Remote Assistance: the dynamic GUI received a mean System Usability Scale (SUS) score of 76.6 versus 68.5 for the static GUI (Wilcoxon z = -4.11, p = .00004, r = .69), and median task completion time dropped from 61.73 s to 41.25 s (Wilcoxon z = -3.97, p = .00007, r = .66), a 16% reduction in mean time. The paper also reports that expert-identified information requirements differ between Remote Driving and Remote Assistance, with map, route, and trip information valued more for assistance and traffic-sign and object highlighting valued more for driving.

Load-bearing premise

The click-dummy, in which 36 non-professional participants advance through still photos by clicking waypoints, is a valid enough proxy for real remote assistance that usability and timing measurements transfer to actual operators.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Teleoperation interfaces for automated vehicles can be designed around a phase model rather than a single always-on display.
  • Reducing information during autonomous monitoring phases can improve both perceived usability and objective task speed.
  • Information requirements for Remote Assistance and Remote Driving overlap substantially, but their relative priorities differ (map/route/trip vs traffic-sign/object highlighting).
  • The click-dummy results support further investment in real-vehicle studies of dynamic GUIs, since hedonic quality remained neutral.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A counterbalanced or randomized presentation would separate the genuine effect of phase-adaptive display from learning effects, because the static GUI was always shown first.
  • The same phase-adaptation principle could extend to other human-supervision contexts, such as fleet monitoring, telemedicine, or remote operation of construction and mining equipment, where operators switch between passive monitoring and active control.
  • The disagreement between experts and lay participants (participants wanted more vehicle parameters; experts valued latency, network quality, map, and control mode) suggests that personalized or role-adaptive element sets may be worth testing.
  • Testing under real network latency and with live video would reveal whether the reduced GUI still alerts operators to state changes quickly enough; missing such changes could offset the measured speed and usability gains.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper follows a user-centered design process to develop a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for teleoperation of automated vehicles, covering both Remote Driving and Remote Assistance. Nine teleoperation experts were interviewed to define teleoperation process steps and to rate the relevance of 57 informational elements derived from a literature review. The resulting GUI was implemented as a click-dummy in a static variant and a dynamic variant that adapts the displayed elements according to the teleoperation phase, and was evaluated in an online study with N=36 participants. The authors report that the dynamic GUI achieved significantly higher System Usability Scale (SUS) ratings and faster task completion times than the static GUI, with no significant overall UEQ difference. A card-sorting task compared participants' ratings of informational elements with the experts' ratings. The paper concludes that an adaptive, phase-dependent display is beneficial and recommends follow-up evaluation with a real vehicle.

Significance. The work offers a structured method for deriving teleoperation GUI content from expert-defined process steps and provides empirical heat maps of informational-element relevance that can inform future interface designs. The explicit comparison of static versus dynamic information presentation directly addresses the research question of when supplemental information should be displayed. If the reported dynamic-vs-static advantage were reliable, it would support phase-adaptive GUI design. However, the central comparison is undermined by a fixed presentation order that the authors themselves acknowledge in Section 4.3, so the main empirical claim is currently not established. The paper is honest about its limitations, which is a strength, but the abstract and conclusions still present the confounded results as definitive.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, Table 5, Abstract] The within-subject design always presents the static GUI first and the dynamic GUI second, perfectly confounding GUI variant with trial order. As Section 4.3 notes, the significantly higher SUS and faster task completion for the dynamic GUI could be entirely due to practice or familiarization effects. The abstract's claim that the dynamic GUI 'significantly outperforms' the static version in usability and task completion time is therefore not supported by the data as analyzed. Please reframe the abstract, results, and conclusions to present these outcomes as fixed-order pilot results, or alternatively report an analysis that accounts for learning effects, and temper the causal language.
  2. [Section 2.2 Online Study, Section 4.3] The evaluation uses a click-dummy with still photographs, non-professional participants (N=36), and a simplified waypoint-clicking task that omits real vehicle interaction, communication channels, and dynamic traffic. The authors themselves note in Section 4.3 that many informational elements were not needed in the click task and that usability scores are influenced by the prototype interaction. This does not invalidate the study as an early-stage interface screening, but it does mean that the informational-element ratings and the perceived GUI differences cannot be generalized to real remote assistance workstations. The paper should explicitly restrict its claims to click-dummy evaluation and avoid implying that the evaluated GUI is ready for operational use.
  3. [Section 2.1, Section 4.2, Table 4] The expert sample of N=9 was randomly split into Remote Driving (n=5) and Remote Assistance (n=4) groups. As acknowledged in Section 4.2, this random assignment may have produced sector imbalances that confound the comparison of the two teleoperation concepts. Because the heat-map differences between Remote Driving and Remote Assistance are said to be small (0.22 on average), the reader should be able to assess this risk. Please report the experts' professional domains per group and discuss whether any observed differences are plausibly due to domain expertise rather than the teleoperation concept itself.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.3] The test name is misspelled as 'Saphiro-Wilk'; it should be 'Shapiro-Wilk'.
  2. [Section 3.2] The text 'Vise versa' should be 'Vice versa'.
  3. [Table 4] The row label 'Fastended Seat Belts' should be 'Fastened Seat Belts'.
  4. [Table 3] The text 'Intervene transistion if something goes wrong' contains a typo: 'transistion' should be 'transition'.
  5. [Section 3.3, Table 5] The study reports multiple significance tests (SUS, task time, UEQ overall, pragmatic, hedonic) without correction for multiple comparisons; given the small sample and the exploratory nature, at least a footnote acknowledging this would be appropriate.
  6. [Figures 2 and 3] The manuscript references the two GUI variants but does not include the actual images in the provided text; please ensure the final version includes clear, high-resolution figures, and consider annotating which elements are shown or hidden in the dynamic variant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GUI comparison and card-sorting validation are external empirical measurements, not predictions derived from their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: expert interviews identify information elements, a static and a dynamic GUI are built, and an online study with N=36 measures SUS, UEQ, task completion time, misclicks, preference, and independent card-sorting ratings. The dynamic GUI's reduced element set was derived from expert ratings, but the participant outcomes were measured, not computed from those ratings; participants could have rated the static GUI higher, and in fact one-third reported no perceived difference. The card-sorting comparison uses a separate participant sample and reports genuine divergences (e.g., participants rated vehicle parameters higher, experts rated communication and map elements higher), so it is convergent validation rather than an assumption being relabeled as a result. The only same-author citations ([28], [39]) are background references to teleoperation concepts and Waypoint Guidance; they are not load-bearing uniqueness claims or fitted inputs. Section 4.3 explicitly acknowledges that the fixed static-first presentation order may explain the dynamic GUI's higher SUS and faster task times through learning effects; this is a real internal-validity limitation, but it is a confound in the experimental design, not circularity, because the comparison does not reduce to its own inputs by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no equation is equivalent to its inputs, and no self-citation chain forces the conclusion.

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

This is an empirical user study, so no fitted parameters or invented entities appear. The central claims rest on domain assumptions about the validity of usability instruments, the click-dummy proxy, expert judgment, and sample representativeness.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The System Usability Scale (SUS) and User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) are valid, accepted measures of usability and user experience for interface evaluation.
    Used in Section 2.2 to quantify GUI quality without independent verification within the paper.
  • domain assumption Click-dummy interaction on still photos is a representative proxy for Remote Assistance teleoperation.
    Section 2.2 and 4.3 assume the fixed scenario, waypoint clicking, and absence of real vehicle latencies still capture operator information needs.
  • domain assumption Expert ratings (N=9) of the 57 informational elements are a reliable source of ground truth for GUI content.
    Section 2.1 and 4.2 note the small sample and random assignment to Remote Driving/Assistance groups.
  • domain assumption Statistical tests assume the sampled participants represent the target population of remote operators.
    Section 3.3 uses N=36 participants, mostly male and young, not professional teleoperators.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A User-Centered Teleoperation GUI for Automated Vehicles: Identifying and Evaluating Information Requirements for Remote Driving and Assistance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/27VY5UDV

@misc{pith2026250421563,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A User-Centered Teleoperation GUI for Automated Vehicles: Identifying and Evaluating Information Requirements for Remote Driving and Assistance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/27VY5UDV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21563}
}
read the original abstract

Teleoperation emerged as a promising fallback for situations beyond the capabilities of automated vehicles. Nevertheless, teleoperation still faces challenges, such as reduced situational awareness. Since situational awareness is primarily built through the remote operator's visual perception, the Graphical User Interface (GUI) design is critical. In addition to video feeds, supplemental informational elements are crucial - not only for the predominantly studied Remote Driving but also for the arising desk-based Remote Assistance concepts. This work develops a GUI for different teleoperation concepts by identifying key informational elements during the teleoperation process through expert interviews (N = 9). Following this, a static and dynamic GUI prototype is developed and evaluated in a click-dummy study (N = 36). Thereby, the dynamic GUI adapts the number of displayed elements according to the teleoperation phase. Results show that both GUIs achieve good System Usability Scale (SUS) ratings, with the dynamic GUI significantly outperforming the static version in both usability and task completion time. The User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) score shows potential for improvement. To enhance the user experience, the GUI should be evaluated in a follow-up study that includes interaction with a real vehicle.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21563 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Empty Template of the Teleoperation Process with Five Predefined Sections and Predefined Actions in Blue-Bordered Boxes In the next step, we wanted to determine which informational element should be shown on a GUI for the remote operator in which section of the teleoperation process. As part of a literature review, more than 60 GUIs in the field of teleoperation and in-vehicle systems were previously analyzed, and t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Designed GUI during Teleoperation Mode (Waypoint Guidance) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Designed GUI Variant with Reduced Set of Display Elements during Autonomous Self-Driving for Dynamic Adaptation across the Teleoperation Process The online study aimed to evaluate and compare the static and dynamic GUI variants while validating the experts’ assessment of the necessity of displaying certain informational elements during teleoperation. To simulate real-world teleoperation, we developed an interactive … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Council Regulation (EU) No 1426/2022, 2022

    Council of European Union. Council Regulation (EU) No 1426/2022, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Waymo - Self-Driving Cars - Autonomous Vehicles - Ride-Hail

    LLC, W. Waymo - Self-Driving Cars - Autonomous Vehicles - Ride-Hail. Available online: https://waymo. com/ (accessed on 30.01.2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Available online: https://www.getcruise

    Cruise Driverless Rides | Autonomous Vehicles | Self-Driving. Available online: https://www.getcruise. com/ (accessed on 30.01.2025)

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Insight: A secret weapon for self-driving car startups: Humans

    Jin, H. Insight: A secret weapon for self-driving car startups: Humans. Available online: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/secret-weapon-self-driving-car-startups- humans-2021-08-23/ (accessed on 2025-01-29)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Remote-driving services: The next disruption in mobility innovation? 2025

    Kelkar, A.K.; Heineke, K.; Kellner, Martin with Smith, A.S. Remote-driving services: The next disruption in mobility innovation? 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Valeo to showcase major innovations at iaa mobility 2023

    Valeo. Valeo to showcase major innovations at iaa mobility 2023. Available online: https://www.valeo. com/en/valeo-to-showcase-major-innovations-at-iaa-mobility-2023/ (accessed on 26.1.2025)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Available online: https://driveu.auto/ (accessed on 26.01.2025)

    Teleoperation in all use cases and all levels of autonomy. Available online: https://driveu.auto/ (accessed on 26.01.2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Balancing humanity and autonomy - The Einride Remote Interface allows operators to monitor a fleet of vehicles and keep an eye on their progress

    Einride. Balancing humanity and autonomy - The Einride Remote Interface allows operators to monitor a fleet of vehicles and keep an eye on their progress. Available online: https://www.einride.tech/what-we- do/autonomy{#}automate (accessed on 26.01.2025)

    work page 2025

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Human Assisted Autonomy

    Fernride. Human Assisted Autonomy. Available online: https://www.fernride.com/system (accessed on 12.04.2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    Updating our understanding of situation awareness in relation to remote operators of autonomous vehicles

    Mutzenich, C.; Durant, S.; Helman, S.; Dalton, P . Updating our understanding of situation awareness in relation to remote operators of autonomous vehicles. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 2021, 6, 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00271-8

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Human Factors Challenges of Remote Support and Control A Position Paper from HF-IRADS1 1

    Carsten, O.M.J.; HF-IRADS. Human Factors Challenges of Remote Support and Control A Position Paper from HF-IRADS1 1. Introduction. 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Human sensory dominance

    Colavita, F.B. Human sensory dominance. Perception and Psychophysics 1974, 16, 409–412. https://doi.org/ 10.3758/bf03203962

    1974 doi

  5. [13]

    Longtime Effects of Videoquality, Videocanvases and Displays on Situation Awareness during Teleoperation of Automated Vehicles

    Georg, J.M.; Putz, E.; Diermeyer, F. Longtime Effects of Videoquality, Videocanvases and Displays on Situation Awareness during Teleoperation of Automated Vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2020, pp. 248–2...

    2020

  6. [14]

    Bird’s Eye View Effect on Situational Awareness in Remote Driving

    Boker, A.; Lanir, J. Bird’s Eye View Effect on Situational Awareness in Remote Driving. In Proceedings of the Adjunct Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, September 2023, AutomotiveUI ’23. h...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Field of view affects sense of speed

    Voysys. Field of view affects sense of speed. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D3j3 52{_}jsM (accessed on 2025-04-10)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Plausibility of Human Remote Driving: Human-Centered Experiments from the Point of View of Teledrivers and Telepassengers

    Cabrall, C.; Stapel, J.; Besemer, P .; Jongbloed, K.; Knipscheer, M.; Lottman, B.; Oomkens, P .; Rutten, N. Plausibility of Human Remote Driving: Human-Centered Experiments from the Point of View of Teledrivers and Telepassengers. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomic...

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    A Head-Mounted Display to Support Teleoperations of Shared Automated Vehicles

    Bout, M.; Brenden, A.P .; Klingegård, M.; Habibovic, A.; Böckle, M.P . A Head-Mounted Display to Support Teleoperations of Shared Automated Vehicles. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular A...

    2017

  10. [18]

    Konzeption und Langzeittest der Mensch-Maschine-Schnittstelle für die Teleoperation von automatisierten Fahrzeugen

    Georg, J.M. Konzeption und Langzeittest der Mensch-Maschine-Schnittstelle für die Teleoperation von automatisierten Fahrzeugen. PhD thesis, Technische Universität München, 2024. 17 of 17

    2024

  11. [19]

    Driving from a Distance: Challenges and Guidelines for Autonomous Vehicle Teleoperation Interfaces

    Tener, F.; Lanir, J. Driving from a Distance: Challenges and Guidelines for Autonomous Vehicle Teleoperation Interfaces. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, 2022; CHI ’22. https://doi.org/10.114...

    2022

  12. [21]

    Effective remote automated vehicle operation: a mixed reality contextual comparison study

    Gafert, M.; Mirnig, A.G.; Fröhlich, P .; Kraut, V .; Anzur, Z.; Tscheligi, M. Effective remote automated vehicle operation: a mixed reality contextual comparison study. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 2023, 27, 2321–2338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-023-01782-5

    2023 doi

  13. [22]

    Teleoperation of autonomous vehicle

    Bodell, O.; Gulliksson, E. Teleoperation of autonomous vehicle. 2016

    2016

  14. [23]

    Remote Operation in a Modern Context 2023

    Lindgren, I.; Larsson Vahlberg, A. Remote Operation in a Modern Context 2023

    2023

  15. [24]

    Teleoperation of Highly Automated Vehicles in Public Transport: User- Centered Design of a Human-Machine Interface for Remote-Operation and Its Expert Usability Evaluation

    Kettwich, C.; Schrank, A.; Oehl, M. 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 2021, 5, 26. https://doi.org...

    2021 doi

  16. [25]

    Human-centered design and evaluation of a workplace for the remote assistance of highly automated vehicles

    Schrank, A.; Walocha, F.; Brandenburg, S.; Oehl, M. Human-centered design and evaluation of a workplace for the remote assistance of highly automated vehicles. Cogn. Technol. Work 2024, 26, 183–206

    2024

  17. [26]

    Guiding, not driving: Design and Evaluation of a Command-Based User Interface for Teleoperation of Autonomous Vehicles, 2025, [arXiv:cs.HC/2502.00750]

    Tener, F.; Lanir, J. Guiding, not driving: Design and Evaluation of a Command-Based User Interface for Teleoperation of Autonomous Vehicles, 2025, [arXiv:cs.HC/2502.00750]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Bridging system limits with human–machine-cooperation

    Brand, T.; Baumann, M.; Schmitz, M. Bridging system limits with human–machine-cooperation. Cogn. Technol. Work 2024, 26, 341–360

    2024

  19. [28]

    Evaluation of Teleoperation Concepts to Solve Automated Vehicle Disengagements

    Brecht, D.; Gehrke, N.; Kerbl, T.; Krauss, N.; Majstorovi´ c, D.; Pfab, F.; Wolf, M.M.; Diermeyer, F. Evaluation of Teleoperation Concepts to Solve Automated Vehicle Disengagements. IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems 2024, 5, 629–641. https://doi.org/10.11...

    2024

  20. [29]

    Human factors considerations of remote operation supporting level 4 automation

    Schrank, A.; Merat, N.; Oehl, M.; Wu, Y. Human factors considerations of remote operation supporting level 4 automation. In Lecture Notes in Mobility; Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024; pp. 111–125

    2024

  21. [30]

    One2Many: remote operation of multiple vehicles, 2023

    Skogsmo, I.; Andersson, J.; Jernberg, C.; Aramrattana, M. One2Many: remote operation of multiple vehicles, 2023

    2023

  22. [31]

    Cruise Under the Hood 2021: From Self-Driving R&D to Self-Driving Reality

    Cruise. Cruise Under the Hood 2021: From Self-Driving R&D to Self-Driving Reality. Available online: https://youtu.be/YnhYeTWvfB0?si=1n-4RupxTqFGUSI3{&}t=448 (accessed on 2025-01-29)

    2021

  23. [32]

    Motional’s Remote Vehicle Assistance (RVA)

    Motional. Motional’s Remote Vehicle Assistance (RVA). Available online: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=pyoHeEcgHFA (accessed on 2024-01-19)

    2024

  24. [33]

    Smart Choices: How Robotaxis Partner with Remote Vehicle Operators to Work Through Tricky Spots Safely

    Motional. Smart Choices: How Robotaxis Partner with Remote Vehicle Operators to Work Through Tricky Spots Safely. Available online: https://motional.com/news/rva (accessed on 2024-01-19)

    2024

  25. [34]

    How Zoox Uses TeleGuidance to Provide Remote Assistance to its Autonomous Vehicles

    Zoox. How Zoox Uses TeleGuidance to Provide Remote Assistance to its Autonomous Vehicles. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQHuutVx78 (accessed on 2025-01-29)

    2025

  26. [35]

    Requirements of Future Control Centers in Public Transport

    Kettwich, C.; Dreßler, A. Requirements of Future Control Centers in Public Transport. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, New York, NY, USA, 2020; AutomotiveUI ’20, p. 69–73. https://doi.org/...

    2020

  27. [36]

    V ., D.D.I

    für Normung e. V ., D.D.I. DIN EN ISO 9241-210:2020-03, Ergonomie der Mensch-System-Interaktion - Teil 210: Menschzentrierte Gestaltung interaktiver Systeme; Deutsche Fassung. Technical report, Beuth Verlag GmbH, 2020. https://doi.org/10.31030/3104744

    2020 doi

  28. [37]

    Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale

    Bangor, A.; Kortum, P .; Miller, J. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J. Usability Studies 2009, 4, 114–123

    2009

  29. [38]

    User experience questionnaire

    Hinderks, A.; Schrepp, M.; Thomaschewski, J. User experience questionnaire. Available online: https: //www.ueq-online.org/ (accessed on 30.01.2025)

    2025

  30. [39]

    Survey on Teleoperation Concepts for Automated Vehicles

    Majstorovi´ c, D.; Hoffmann, S.; Pfab, F.; Schimpe, A.; Wolf, M.M.; Diermeyer, F. Survey on Teleoperation Concepts for Automated Vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2022, pp. 1290–1296. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2022

  31. [40]

    A power primer

    Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 1992, 112, 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112. 1.155. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and n...

    1992 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.