User-centred design evaluation of symbols for adaptive cruise control (ACC) and lane-keeping assistance (LKA)

Perrier, Mickaël Jean Rémy; Louw, Tyron Linton; Carsten, Oliver · 2021 · Crossref

DOI: 10.1007/s10111-021-00673-0

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study addresses the usability and clarity of graphical symbols for Advanced Driving Assistance Systems (ADAS), specifically Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) and Lane-Centring Control (LCC). The research was motivated by the proliferation of ADAS features and the inconsistency of symbols across manufacturers, which often deviate from ISO standards. This variability creates confusion, particularly because the standard Lane-Keeping Assistance (LKA) symbol is used for both Lane Departure Prevention (LDP) and LCC, despite their distinct operational behaviors. The authors aimed to evaluate whether current standard symbols and manufacturer-specific alternatives are intuitively understandable and distinct enough to prevent mode confusion. The researchers conducted an online survey with 328 drivers from 47 countries, filtering for valid driving licenses and experience. The study utilized two primary tasks: a comprehension test and a matching test. In the comprehension test, participants viewed one of four ACC symbols or one of four LCC symbols (selected from a prior participatory design workshop) and described their function. Responses were scored on a 1–9 scale based on alignment with formal system definitions. In the matching test, a subset of 96 participants matched seven ADAS symbols to their functional descriptions to assess potential confusion within a cluster of symbols. Data were analyzed using ordered logistic regressions for comprehension scores and binary logistic regressions for matching accuracy, controlling for participants’ prior knowledge of ADAS. The results indicated that the standard ISO ACC symbol was not the most suitable among the four tested. Instead, a modified symbol (inspired by Mercedes-Benz design) achieved significantly higher comprehension scores, suggesting that visual elements representing pre-set gap distance improve clarity. For LCC, the standard LKA/LDP symbol was frequently confused with LCC symbols, particularly when the LCC symbols included depictions of hands on the steering wheel. Drivers with no prior knowledge of ADAS struggled significantly more to interpret the symbols than those with experience or professional involvement. In the matching task, the presence of hands on LCC symbols increased confusion with other lateral control systems. The study concludes that current standard symbols for ACC and LKA/LCC are flawed and insufficient for distinguishing between different levels of automation. The findings support a user-centred design approach to symbol standardization, arguing that symbols must clearly differentiate between intermittent assistance (LDP) and continuous control (LCC). The authors recommend revising ISO standards to incorporate user feedback and ensure symbols are distinct, intuitive, and accurately reflect system capabilities to enhance safety and usability in partially automated vehicles.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-nvidia on 2026-08-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• ehmi external hmi

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Applied Guidance: design guidelines
• Theoretical Contribution: conceptual framework