When humans share space in road traffic, as drivers or as vulnerable road users, they draw on their full range of communicative and interactive capabilities. Much remains unknown about these behaviors, but they need to be captured in models if automated vehicles are to coexist successfully with human road users. Empirical studies of human road user behavior implicate a large number of underlying cognitive mechanisms, which taken together are well beyond the scope of existing computational models. Here, we note that for all of these putative mechanisms, computational theories exist in different subdisciplines of psychology, for more constrained tasks. We demonstrate how these separate theories can be generalized from abstract laboratory paradigms and integrated into a computational framework for modeling human road user interaction, combining Bayesian perception, a theory of mind regarding others’ intentions, behavioral game theory, long-term valuation of action alternatives, and evidence accumulation decision-making. We show that a model with these assumptions—but not simpler versions of the same model—can account for a number of previously unexplained phenomena in naturalistic driver–pedestrian road-crossing interactions, and successfully predicts interaction outcomes in an unseen data set. Our modeling results contribute to demonstrating the real-world value of the theories from which we draw, and address calls in psychology for cumulative theory-building, presenting human road use as a suitable setting for work of this nature. Our findings also underscore the formidable complexity of human interaction in road traffic, with strong implications for the requirements to set on development and testing of vehicle automation.@en

One of the current challenges of automation is to have highly automated vehicles (HAVs) that communicate effectively with pedestrians and react to changes in pedestrian behaviour, to promote more trustable HAVs. However, the details of how human drivers and pedestrians interact at unsignalised crossings remain poorly understood. We addressed some aspects of this challenge by replicating vehicle–pedestrian interactions in a safe and controlled virtual environment by connecting a high fidelity motion-based driving simulator to a CAVE-based pedestrian lab in which 64 participants (32 pairs of one driver and one pedestrian) interacted with each other under different scenarios. The controlled setting helped us study the causal role of kinematics and priority rules on interaction outcome and behaviour, something that is not possible in naturalistic studies. We also found that kinematic cues played a stronger role than psychological traits like sensation seeking and social value orientation in determining whether the pedestrian or driver passed first at unmarked crossings. One main contribution of this study is our experimental paradigm, which permitted repeated observation of crossing interactions by each driver-pedestrian participant pair, yielding behaviours which were qualitatively in line with observations from naturalistic studies.@en

Current research on vehicle-pedestrian interactions focuses on the reaction of one actor other than the interaction of two actors, and considering the impact of the real-time behaviour of both actors on each other. To address this issue, the current study replicated a natural vehicle-pedestrian interaction to the virtual environment by connecting a high-fidelity driving simulator to a CAVE-based pedestrians' simulator. Behaviours from both actors in response to each other were observed indifferent situations including two crossing locations and five time gaps. The proposed method enabled simultaneous interaction in a controlled and safe environment as well as provided implications for future AV design.@en

Recent developments in vehicle automation require simulations of human-robot interactions in the road traffic context, which can be achieved by computational models of human behavior such as game theory. Game theory provides a good insight into road user behavior by considering agents' interdependencies. However, it is still unclear whether conventional game theory is suitable for modeling vehicle-pedestrian interactions at unsignalized locations or if more complex models like behavioral game theory are needed. Hence, we compared four game-theoretic models based on two different payoff formulations and two solving algorithms, to answer this question. Unlike the most previous studies that employed naturalistic datasets to test and validate such models, this study utilized a distributed simulation dataset to test and compare the models. The study was conducted by connecting a CAVE-based pedestrian simulator to a motion-based driving simulator to replicate the traffic scenarios for 32 pedestrian-driver pairs. The findings demonstrated that there is a high variability between participant pairs' behaviors. Our proposed behavioral game-theoretic model outperformed other models in predicting the interaction outcome. This translates to a decrease by 70% and 67% in the root mean squared error (RMSE) when compared to the baseline model, for marked and unmarked crossings, respectively. The model can also predict which interaction will take the longest time to resolve. According to our results, road users cannot be expected to behave in line with the Nash equilibrium of conventional game theory that underscores the complexity of human behavior with implications for the testing and development of automated vehicles.@en