Over the past few decades, there have been significant developments in eye-tracking technology, particularly in the domain of mobile, head-mounted devices. Nevertheless, questions remain regarding the accuracy of these eye-trackers during static and dynamic tasks. In light of this, we evaluated the performance of two widely used devices: Tobii Pro Glasses 2 and Tobii Pro Glasses 3. A total of 36 participants engaged in tasks under three dynamicity conditions. In the “seated with a chinrest” trial, only the eyes could be moved; in the “seated without a chinrest” trial, both the head and the eyes were free to move; and during the walking trial, participants walked along a straight path. During the seated trials, participants’ gaze was directed towards dots on a wall by means of audio instructions, whereas in the walking trial, participants maintained their gaze on a bullseye while walking towards it. Eye-tracker accuracy was determined using computer vision techniques to identify the target within the scene camera image. The findings showed that Tobii 3 outperformed Tobii 2 in terms of accuracy during the walking trials. Moreover, the results suggest that employing a chinrest in the case of head-mounted eye-trackers is counterproductive, as it necessitates larger eye eccentricities for target fixation, thereby compromising accuracy compared to not using a chinrest, which allows for head movement. Lastly, it was found that participants who reported higher workload demonstrated poorer eye-tracking accuracy. The current findings may be useful in the design of experiments that involve head-mounted eye-trackers. @en

Many fatal accidents that involve pedestrians occur at road crossings, and are attributed to a breakdown of communication between pedestrians and drivers. Thus, it is important to investigate how forms of communication in traffic, such as eye contact, influence crossing decisions. Thus far, there is little information about the effect of drivers’ eye contact on pedestrians’ perceived safety to cross the road. Existing studies treat eye contact as immutable, i.e., it is either present or absent in the whole interaction, an approach that overlooks the effect of the timing of eye contact. We present an online crowdsourced study that addresses this research gap. 1835 participants viewed 13 videos of an approaching car twice, in random order, and held a key whenever they felt safe to cross. The videos differed in terms of whether the car yielded or not, whether the car driver made eye contact or not, and the times when the driver made eye contact. Participants also answered questions about their perceived intuitiveness of the driver's eye contact behavior. The results showed that eye contact made people feel considerably safer to cross compared to no eye contact (an increase in keypress percentage from 31% to 50% was observed). In addition, the initiation and termination of eye contact affected perceived safety to cross more strongly than continuous eye contact and a lack of it, respectively. The car's motion, however, was a more dominant factor. Additionally, the driver's eye contact when the car braked was considered intuitive, and when it drove off, counterintuitive. In summary, this study demonstrates for the first time how drivers’ eye contact affects pedestrians’ perceived safety as a function of time in a dynamic scenario and questions the notion in recent literature that eye contact in road interactions is dispensable. These findings may be of interest in the development of automated vehicles (AVs), where the driver of the AV might not always be paying attention to the environment.

@en

Non-verbal communication, such as eye contact between drivers and pedestrians, has been regarded as one way to reduce accident risk. So far, studies have assumed rather than objectively measured the occurrence of eye contact. We address this research gap by developing an eye contact detection method and testing it in an indoor experiment with scripted driver–pedestrian interactions at a pedestrian crossing. Thirty participants acted as a pedestrian either standing on an imaginary curb or crossing an imaginary one-lane road in front of a stationary vehicle with an experimenter in the driver's seat. In half of the trials, pedestrians were instructed to make eye contact with the driver; in the other half, they were prohibited from doing so. Both parties’ gaze was recorded using eye trackers. An in-vehicle stereo camera recorded the car's point of view, a head-mounted camera recorded the pedestrian's point of view, and the location of the driver's and pedestrian's eyes was estimated using image recognition. We demonstrate that eye contact can be detected by measuring the angles between the vector joining the estimated location of the driver's and pedestrian's eyes, and the pedestrian's and driver's instantaneous gaze directions, respectively, and identifying whether these angles fall below a threshold of 4°. We achieved 100% correct classification of the trials involving eye contact and those without eye contact, based on measured eye contact duration. The proposed eye contact detection method may be useful for future research into eye contact.

@en