# Enhancing Street-Crossing Safety for Visually Impaired Pedestrians with Haptic and Visual Feedback
## 5 Discussion
### Effects of Feedback Urgency on Decision Time and Crossing Outcomes  
In Study 1, focusing on the traffic light crossing scenario, visual feedback led to significantly shorter decision times than haptic feedback. Under different frequency conditions, participants interpreted visual feedback as conveying higher urgency, thereby accelerating their reaction times (see Figure 14a) and clarifying crossing intentions (Figure 14b). These findings suggest that visual feedback could potentially promote timely and cautious deci  
Figure 13: Mean user-perceived confidence of Study 2. (**a**) Haptic feedback confidence; (**b**) visual feedback confidence. sions for individuals with residual light perception. However, from a user-experience perspective, most participants still preferred haptic feedback. While visual feedback showed advantages in decision-making speed, prior research has identified potential limitations, including perceptual fatigue and possible confusion with ambient lighting during extended use [27]. As a result, haptic feedback offered a more comfortable experience, whereas visual feedback demonstrated better performance in rapid decision-making for traffic signal scenarios. Further analysis showed that the modality difference remained significant across different feedback area conditions. Visual feedback consistently led to faster decision times (see Figure 15a). However, participants' crossing intentions were less explicit with visual feedback compared to haptic feedback (see Figure 15b). This suggests that, while visual feedback enhances decision speed, haptic feedback may better support clear action intentions, highlighting the complementary strengths of both modalities for different scenarios or preferences. In Study 2, which addressed vehicle crossing, haptic feedback yielded two key benefits. First, it effectively reduced decision-making time; second, its ability to convey vehicle proximity in a tangible manner earned widespread user appro  
Figure 14: Decision time and cross rate across feedback and frequency of Study 1. (**a**) Mean decision time for feedback and frequency; (**b**) mean cross rate for feedback and frequency. Figure 15: Decision time and cross rate across feedback and frequency of Study 1. (**a**) Mean decision time for feedback and size; (**b**) mean cross rate for feedback and size. related decisions were considered (see Figure 16a), visual feedback maintained its clarity advantage observed in Study 1. However, area-based decisions (Figure 16b) revealed stronger performance for haptic feedback, as participants more readily sensed urgency through changes in vibration area [85]. Moreover, the advantages of Haptic Feedback extended beyond decision quality and were also evident in decision speed under various feedback parameters. The data showed that haptic feedback consistently achieved shorter decision times compared to visual feedback, both under different feedback area parameters (see Figure 17a) and feedback state parameters (see Figure 17b). Particularly under dynamic feedback parameters, the speed advantage of haptic feedback was especially pronounced, emphasizing its effectiveness in scenarios requiring rapid responses to moving vehicles. Figure 16: Cross rate across feedback, frequency, and size of Study 2. (**a**) Mean cross rate for feedback and frequency; (**b**) mean cross rate for feedback and size. Figure 17: Decision time across the feedback, size, and state of Study 2. (**a**) Mean decision time for feedback and size; (**b**) mean decision time for feedback and state. The parameter analysis results identified several feedback combinations that performed well in different scenarios. In Study 1 (see Table 2), the combinations of small (1.0 Hz) and large (1.0 Hz) for haptic feedback, and medium (0.5 Hz) and small (4.0 Hz) for visual feedback, effectively distinguished between \"cross\" and \"wait\" decision scenarios.