Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Toros Senan
dblp:331/1622 · also Toros Ufuk Senan
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0001-7661-068XORCID · reported
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Human-robot interaction · 87% Haptics and multimodal interaction · 13% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Human-robot interaction
automated vehicles |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Multi-Modal eHMIs: The Relative Impact of Light and Sound in AV-Pedestrian Interaction · CHI 2024 |
Human-robot interaction › automated vehicles
external human-machine interface |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Multi-Modal eHMIs: The Relative Impact of Light and Sound in AV-Pedestrian Interaction · CHI 2024 |
Haptics and multimodal interaction
multimodal interaction |
0.2 | 1 | 2024 | Multi-Modal eHMIs: The Relative Impact of Light and Sound in AV-Pedestrian Interaction · CHI 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
experimental video study · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Multi-Modal eHMIs: The Relative Impact of Light and Sound in AV-Pedestrian InteractionabstractExternal Human-Machine Interfaces (eHMIs) have been evaluated to facilitate interactions between Automated Vehicles (AVs) and pedestrians. Most eHMIs are, however, visual/ light-based solutions, and multi-modal eHMIs have received little attention to date. We ran an experimental video study (N = 29) to systematically understand the effect on pedestrian’s willingness to cross the road and user preferences of a light-based eHMI (light bar on the bumper) and two sound-based eHMIs (bell sound and droning sound), and combinations thereof. We found no objective change in pedestrians’ willingness to cross the road based on the nature of eHMI, although people expressed different subjective preferences for the different ways an eHMI may communicate, and sometimes even strong dislike for multi-modal eHMIs. This shows that the modality of the evaluated eHMI concepts had relatively little impact on their effectiveness. Consequently, this lays an important groundwork for accessibility considerations of future eHMIs, and points towards the insight that provisions can be made for taking user preferences into account without compromising effectiveness. Debargha Dey, Toros Senan, Bart Hengeveld, Mark Colley, Azra Habibovic, Wendy Ju |
CHI | 2 |