用生物测量传感和调查反应评估行人压力

IF 4.4 2区 工程技术 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Shiyu Ma, Wenwen Zhang, Robert B. Noland, Clinton J. Andrews, Hannah Younes, Leigh Ann Von Hagen
{"title":"用生物测量传感和调查反应评估行人压力","authors":"Shiyu Ma,&nbsp;Wenwen Zhang,&nbsp;Robert B. Noland,&nbsp;Clinton J. Andrews,&nbsp;Hannah Younes,&nbsp;Leigh Ann Von Hagen","doi":"10.1016/j.trf.2025.103347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Recent advances in biometric sensing technologies, such as eye tracking, heart rate trackers, and galvanic skin response (GSR) sensors, offer new opportunities to measure pedestrian stress level and their travel experiences in real-time. Uncertainty remains about whether biometric sensor measurements of stress align with self-reported stress. We investigate the association between pedestrians’ sensor-measured stress and survey-reported stress, as well as the temporal sensitivity of sensor metrics across varying time intervals. We conducted a semi-naturalistic walking experiment along a 1.2-mile route featuring six streets with distinct built environment features. Thirty participants, equipped with sensors to measure heart rate variability (HRV), electrodermal activities (EDA), and gaze behaviors (with eye-tracking glasses), walked the route and completed post-experiment surveys rating stress levels for each street. Forty-eight stress-related sensor metrics were compared to survey ratings using bivariate and multivariate methods. Our findings emphasize the importance of a within-subject analytical approach and controlling for confounding factors to robustly associate sensor results with survey outcomes. EDA metrics, collected from GSR sensors, responded more quickly to acute stress, while HRV and gaze metrics are more reliable over longer intervals (30–120 s) to reflect walking stress. We discuss challenges in analyzing and interpreting our sensor measurements and how they measure stress. We draw from the theory of risk homeostasis to explain discrepancies between sensor and survey results. Our methodological framework and findings provide guidance on whether and how biometric sensors can be used to identify pedestrian stress levels.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48355,"journal":{"name":"Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour","volume":"115 ","pages":"Article 103347"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing pedestrian stress with biometric sensing and survey responses\",\"authors\":\"Shiyu Ma,&nbsp;Wenwen Zhang,&nbsp;Robert B. Noland,&nbsp;Clinton J. Andrews,&nbsp;Hannah Younes,&nbsp;Leigh Ann Von Hagen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.trf.2025.103347\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Recent advances in biometric sensing technologies, such as eye tracking, heart rate trackers, and galvanic skin response (GSR) sensors, offer new opportunities to measure pedestrian stress level and their travel experiences in real-time. Uncertainty remains about whether biometric sensor measurements of stress align with self-reported stress. We investigate the association between pedestrians’ sensor-measured stress and survey-reported stress, as well as the temporal sensitivity of sensor metrics across varying time intervals. We conducted a semi-naturalistic walking experiment along a 1.2-mile route featuring six streets with distinct built environment features. Thirty participants, equipped with sensors to measure heart rate variability (HRV), electrodermal activities (EDA), and gaze behaviors (with eye-tracking glasses), walked the route and completed post-experiment surveys rating stress levels for each street. Forty-eight stress-related sensor metrics were compared to survey ratings using bivariate and multivariate methods. Our findings emphasize the importance of a within-subject analytical approach and controlling for confounding factors to robustly associate sensor results with survey outcomes. EDA metrics, collected from GSR sensors, responded more quickly to acute stress, while HRV and gaze metrics are more reliable over longer intervals (30–120 s) to reflect walking stress. We discuss challenges in analyzing and interpreting our sensor measurements and how they measure stress. We draw from the theory of risk homeostasis to explain discrepancies between sensor and survey results. Our methodological framework and findings provide guidance on whether and how biometric sensors can be used to identify pedestrian stress levels.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48355,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour\",\"volume\":\"115 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103347\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136984782500302X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136984782500302X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生物识别传感技术的最新进展,如眼动追踪、心率追踪器和皮肤电反应(GSR)传感器,为实时测量行人的压力水平和他们的旅行体验提供了新的机会。生物传感器测量的压力是否与自我报告的压力一致仍不确定。我们研究了行人传感器测量的压力和调查报告的压力之间的关系,以及传感器指标在不同时间间隔内的时间灵敏度。我们沿着一条1.2英里的路线进行了半自然的步行实验,该路线包括六条具有鲜明建筑环境特征的街道。30名参与者配备了测量心率变异性(HRV)、皮肤电活动(EDA)和凝视行为(佩戴眼球追踪眼镜)的传感器,他们走完这条路,并完成了对每条街道的压力水平进行评级的实验后调查。48个与应力相关的传感器指标使用双变量和多变量方法与调查评分进行了比较。我们的研究结果强调了主体内分析方法和控制混杂因素的重要性,从而将传感器结果与调查结果强有力地联系起来。从GSR传感器收集的EDA指标对急性应激反应更快,而HRV和凝视指标在较长的间隔(30-120秒)内更可靠地反映行走应激。我们讨论在分析和解释我们的传感器测量和他们如何测量压力的挑战。我们借鉴风险稳态理论来解释传感器和调查结果之间的差异。我们的方法框架和研究结果为是否以及如何使用生物传感器来识别行人的压力水平提供了指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing pedestrian stress with biometric sensing and survey responses
Recent advances in biometric sensing technologies, such as eye tracking, heart rate trackers, and galvanic skin response (GSR) sensors, offer new opportunities to measure pedestrian stress level and their travel experiences in real-time. Uncertainty remains about whether biometric sensor measurements of stress align with self-reported stress. We investigate the association between pedestrians’ sensor-measured stress and survey-reported stress, as well as the temporal sensitivity of sensor metrics across varying time intervals. We conducted a semi-naturalistic walking experiment along a 1.2-mile route featuring six streets with distinct built environment features. Thirty participants, equipped with sensors to measure heart rate variability (HRV), electrodermal activities (EDA), and gaze behaviors (with eye-tracking glasses), walked the route and completed post-experiment surveys rating stress levels for each street. Forty-eight stress-related sensor metrics were compared to survey ratings using bivariate and multivariate methods. Our findings emphasize the importance of a within-subject analytical approach and controlling for confounding factors to robustly associate sensor results with survey outcomes. EDA metrics, collected from GSR sensors, responded more quickly to acute stress, while HRV and gaze metrics are more reliable over longer intervals (30–120 s) to reflect walking stress. We discuss challenges in analyzing and interpreting our sensor measurements and how they measure stress. We draw from the theory of risk homeostasis to explain discrepancies between sensor and survey results. Our methodological framework and findings provide guidance on whether and how biometric sensors can be used to identify pedestrian stress levels.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
14.60%
发文量
239
审稿时长
71 days
期刊介绍: Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour focuses on the behavioural and psychological aspects of traffic and transport. The aim of the journal is to enhance theory development, improve the quality of empirical studies and to stimulate the application of research findings in practice. TRF provides a focus and a means of communication for the considerable amount of research activities that are now being carried out in this field. The journal provides a forum for transportation researchers, psychologists, ergonomists, engineers and policy-makers with an interest in traffic and transport psychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信