# Enhancing Street-Crossing Safety for Visually Impaired Pedestrians with Haptic and Visual Feedback
## 5 Discussion
### Analysis of Confidence Levels in Relation to Decision Time and Crossing Behavior
In particular, when users lack confidence, high-frequency flashing in visual feedback appears to generate a stronger sense of urgency, prompting quicker action. In Study 2, we examined both dynamic and static conditions in the vehicle crossing scenario (see Table 8). Under dynamic conditions (Table 7), both feedback modalities showed the longest decision times at full confidence: for haptic feedback (high confidence: 2.88 s < low confidence: 3.27 s < full confidence: 3.53 s) and visual feedback (low confidence: 4.32 s < high confidence: 4.59 s < full confidence: 4.79 s). Moreover, at the same confidence level, haptic feedback yielded shorter decision times than visual feedback, possibly owing to dynamic vibration cues that intuitively signal impending hazards [93]. Under static conditions, haptic feedback decision times remained shorter once users reached high confidence (low confidence: 2.99 s < high confidence: 3.10 s < full confidence: 3.26 s), while visual feedback exhibited (low confidence: 2.89 s < full confidence: 3.36 s < high confidence: 3.48 s). These findings show that, at or above high confidence, haptic feedback consistently enabled briefer decision times than visual feedback. The differing impact of confidence levels in Studies 1 and 2 thus reflects unique traffic environments: while fixed light signals give clearer crossing windows [5], vehicle-based judgments demand more cautious strategies [6], leading confident users to take additional time before proceeding. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Feedback Modality**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Size**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Confidence Level**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Frequency**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & **0.5 Hz** & **1.0 Hz** & **2.0 Hz** & **4.0 Hz** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Haptic Feedback} & \multirow{2}{*}{Large} & 100\% & 3.53 & 2.83 & 3.05 & 3.36 \\  & & 90–99\% & 6.93 & 4.16 & 4.52 & 3.86 \\  & & \(<\)90\% & 4.65 & 3.51 & 3.02 & 2.63 \\ \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{2}{*}{Medium} & 100\% & 4.05 & – & 2.96 & 4.31 \\  & & 90–99\% & 3.24 & 4.08 & 5.82 & 3.00 \\  & & \(<\)90\% & 5.66 & 4.96 & 5.18 & 6.12 \\ \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{2}{*}{Small} & 100\% & 5.20 & 2.60 & 2.48 & 5.73 \\  & & 90–99\% & 4.49 & 2.76 & 3.86 & 4.12 \\  & & \(<\)90\% & 7.15 & 5.07 & 4.63 & 4.87 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Visual Feedback} & \multirow{2}{*}{Large} & 100\% & 4.38 & 3.12 & 2.86 & 2.63 \\  & & 90–99\% & 4.03 & 4.05 & 3.38 & 5.24 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & \(<\)90\% & 4.01 & 4.32 & 3.65 & 2.67 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{2}{*}{Medium} & 100\% & 3.61 & – & 3.07 & 2.67 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & 90–99\% & 4.00 & 4.42 & 3.49 & 5.51 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & \(<\)90\% & 4.46 & 3.95 & 3.16 & 3.07 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-8}  & \multirow{2}{*}{Small} & 100\% & 5.82 & 4.26 & 2.91 & 2.92 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & 90–99\% & 5.12 & 4.20 & 3.48 & 2.87 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & \(<\)90\% & 6.12 & 3.85 & 4.03 & 2.52 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: All values are measured in seconds. Missing data are indicated as –.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Study 1: decision time (s) and confidence levels across different feedback parameters.