# Enhancing Street-Crossing Safety for Visually Impaired Pedestrians with Haptic and Visual Feedback
## 3 Study 1: Haptic and Visual Feedback for Visually Impaired Pedestrians Crossing at Traffic Signals
### Results
#### 4.2.2 User Perception of Feedback Patterns  
After the test, participants completed a questionnaire measuring both urgency and confidence. GEE revealed significant effects of frequency (\(\chi^{2}(3)=506.53,p<0.01\)), size (\(\chi^{2}(1)=116.42,p<0.01\)), and state (\(\chi^{2}(1)=5.31,p<0.05\)). No other main or interaction effect was found. The mean urgency across feedback modalities, frequencies, sizes, directions, and states is illustrated in Figure 12. Post hoc Bonferroni pairwise comparisons showed that, for urgency, that of frequency 4.0 Hz (3.81) was significantly more than that of frequency 0.5 Hz (1.73) (\(p<0.01\)), frequency 1.0 Hz (2.38) (\(p<0.01\)), and frequency 2.0 Hz (3.16) (\(p<0.01\)); that of frequency 2.0 Hz (3.16) was significantly more than that of frequency 0.5 Hz (1.73) (\(p<0.01\)) and frequency 1.0 Hz (2.38) (\(p<0.01\)), while that of frequency 1.0 Hz (2.38) was significantly more than that of frequency 0.5 Hz (1.73) (\(p<0.01\)). The urgency of the medium size (3.18) was significantly more than that of the small size (2.37) (\(p<0.01\)). The urgency of the dynamic state (2.88) was significantly more than that of the static state (2.67) (\(p<0.05\)). For confidence ratings, EGG revealed significant effects of frequency (\(\chi^{2}(3)=57.86\), \(p<0.001\)). No other main or interaction effect was found. The mean confidence across feedback modalities, frequencies, sizes, directions, and states is illustrated in Figure 13. Post hoc Bonferroni pairwise comparisons showed that, for confidence, that of frequency 4.0 Hz (95.74%) was significantly more than that of frequency 0.5 Hz (84.14%) (\(p<0.01\)), frequency 1.0 Hz (80.35%) (\(p<0.01\)) and frequency 2.0 Hz (83.82%) (\(p<0.01\)). In post-experiment interviews, over 81% of respondents (13 for haptic feedback; 3 for visual feedback) explicitly expressed a preference for the haptic feedback system, particularly favoring its dynamic tactile presentation (11 for the dynamic condition; 5 for the static condition). They felt that dynamic haptic feedback helped them perceive the vehicle's trajectory more intuitively and accurately. As one participant noted, \"The dynamic haptic Feedback allowed me to clearly feel the process of the vehicle crossing by the side of my torso, which significantly boosted my confidence in making decisions\". Additionally, users unanimously agreed that changes in feedback frequency were crucial for perceiving the distance and urgency of approaching vehicles. They stated that the gradual increase in vibration or light frequency effectively conveyed a sense of \"urgency\" as the vehicle approached, while changes in the feedback area helped them judge the vehicle's distance. The combination of these two dimensions allowed them to quickly assess danger and make cautious decisions. Most participants pointed out that high-frequency vibrations enabled them to recognize imminent danger more immediately than high-frequency visual cues, giving them greater confidence in their decision-making. Regarding the feedback area, one participant commented as follows: \"A smaller vibration area allowed me to perceive the cues more precisely; combined with frequency changes, I felt more confident in my decision-making\". Another user stated, \"Frequency changes within a small area allowed me to quickly understand the cues while consuming fewer cognitive resources\". The user feedback revealed a strong user preference for haptic feedback systems that combine dynamic presentation with frequency modulation, suggesting that tactile cues may offer cognitive advantages for urgent safety decisions by providing spatially intuitive information while imposing a lower cognitive load compared to visual alternatives. However, some participants suggested that, in specific scenarios, static visual cues might offer unique advantages, particularly when multiple vehicles needed to be perceived; changes in light areas could intuitively convey information about traffic density. Participants also offered suggestions for enhancing the feedback modes.