# 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 both Study 1 and Study 2, we conducted in-depth correlation analyses between users' decision confidence and crossing frequencies (see Tables 4 and 5). Focusing on complete-confidence cases (confidence = 100%), we found that the visual feedback group consistently surpassed the haptic feedback group in generating fully confident decisions. The visual feedback group made 73 such decisions in Study 1, showing a 21.67% increase compared to the haptic feedback group's 60 instances, and reached 180 fully confident decisions in Study 2 (90 Dynamic, 90 Static), exceeding the haptic feedback group's 165 (87 Dynamic, 78 Static) by about 9.1%. In addition, the dynamic condition within the haptic feedback group effectively boosted user confidence, whereas the visual feedback group showed no such difference between static and dynamic modes. As the feedback frequency rose in both the signal-controlled (Study 1) and vehicle crossing (Study 2) scenarios, users receiving visual feedback often chose to wait. This pattern likely arises from the clarity of visual feedback [27], wherein higher frequencies heighten environmental awareness and encourage more cautious decisions. However, environmental conditions such as intense sunlight may reduce the perceptibility of visual cues [27], potentially diminishing user confidence in visual feedback under certain circumstances. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Feedback Modality**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Size**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Response**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Frequency**} \\ \cline{4-7}  & & & **0.5 Hz** & **1.0 Hz** & **2.0 Hz** & **4.0 Hz** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Haptic Feedback} & \multirow{4}{*}{Large} & Confidence = 100\% & 4 & 3 & 7 & 14 \\  & & Cross Count (100\%) & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 \\  & & Cross Count & 4 & 4 & 3 & 3 \\ \cline{2-7}  & & \multirow{4}{*}{Medium} & Confidence = 100\% & 1 & 0 & 3 & 9 \\  & & Cross Count (100\%) & 1 & 0 & 2 & 4 \\  & & Cross Count & 10 & 10 & 6 & 5 \\ \cline{2-7}  & & \multirow{4}{*}{Small} & Confidence = 100\% & 6 & 3 & 3 & 7 \\  & & Cross Count (100\%) & 5 & 3 & 2 & 1 \\  & & Cross Count & 13 & 14 & 10 & 5 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Visual Feedback} & \multirow{4}{*}{Large} & Confidence = 100\% & 6 & 5 & 10 & 14 \\  & & Cross Count (100\%) & 4 & 2 & 2 & 1 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Cross Count & 13 & 7 & 3 & 1 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-7}  & \multirow{4}{*}{Medium} & Confidence = 100\% & 4 & 0 & 2 & 11 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Cross Count (100\%) & 4 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Cross Count & 14 & 8 & 2 & 1 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-7}  & \multirow{4}{*}{Small} & Confidence = 100\% & 5 & 3 & 4 & 9 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Cross Count (100\%) & 5 & 2 & 0 & 0 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Cross Count & 14 & 10 & 3 & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Confidence = 100% shows the number of users who reported complete confidence in their decisions. The cross count (100%) indicates the number of users who made positive (cross) decisions with 100% confidence. The cross count shows the total number of positive (cross) decisions across all confidence levels.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: User responses to various feedback parameters in Study 1.