# 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
#### 3.2.2 User Perception of Feedback Patterns  
After the test, the participants completed a questionnaire measuring both urgency and confidence. GEEs revealed significant effects of frequency (\(\chi^{2}(3)=248.49,p<0.01\)) and size (\(\chi^{2}(2)=87.48,p<0.01\)) on urgency (Figure 6). Post hoc Bonferroni pairwise comparisons showed that the urgency of frequency 4.0 Hz (3.61) was significantly more than that of frequency 2.0 Hz (3.04) (\(p<0.01\)), frequency 1.0 Hz (2.41) (\(p<0.01\)), and frequency 0.5 Hz (1.84) (\(p<0.01\)); that of frequency 2.0 Hz (3.07) was significantly more than that of frequency 1.0 Hz (2.41) (\(p<0.01\)) and frequency 0.5 Hz (1.84) (\(p<0.01\)), and that of frequency 1.0 Hz (2.41) was significantly more than that of frequency 0.5 Hz (1.84) (\(p<0.01\)). The urgency of the large size (3.34) was significantly more than that of the medium size (2.77) (\(p<0.01\)) and the small size (2.07) (\(p<0.01\)); that of the medium size (2.77) was significantly more than that of the size small (2.07) (\(p<0.01\)). For confidence ratings, GEEs revealed significant effects of frequency (\(\chi^{2}(3)=35.38\), \(p<0.001\)) and size (\(\chi^{2}(2)=10.77,p<0.01\)) on confidence (Figure 7). Post hoc Bonferroni pairwise comparisons showed that the confidence of frequency 4.0 Hz (92.87%) was significantly more than that of frequency 2.0 Hz (85.73%) (\(p<0.01\)), frequency 1.0 Hz (79.77%) (\(p<0.01\)), and frequency 0.5 Hz (79.64%) (\(p<0.01\)); that of frequency 2.0 Hz (85.73%) was significantly more than that of frequency 1.0 Hz (79.77%) (\(p<0.05\)). The confidence of the large size (87.77%) was significantly more than that of the medium size (81.43%) (\(p<0.05\)). Figure 5: The mean head rotation angle and head movement distance result of Study 1. (**a**) Mean head rotation angle; (**b**) mean head movement distance. Interview results show that over 62% of respondents (10 for haptic feedback and 6 for visual feedback) explicitly expressed a preference for the haptic feedback system, stating that its dynamic vibration frequency changes conveyed the urgency of situations more intuitively. This immediate physical perception helped them better understand and assess the level of danger in the current context. As one participant noted, \"When the vibration frequency is very high, I can clearly feel that 'danger is approaching', which gives me more confidence in judging the level of urgency and making quick decisions\". However, some participants pointed out that an excessive vibration amplitude or overly high frequencies could cause discomfort or fatigue, indicating the need to strike a balance between alertness and user comfort. In contrast, participants reported that visual feedback conveyed a stronger sense of urgency compared to haptic feedback, especially the intense urgency evoked via high-frequency flashing, which made them more cautious during their decision-making process. As the flashing frequency increased, participants' confidence in their decisions also improved. They generally believed that flashing frequency was the key factor in conveying urgency: faster flashes effectively induced a sense of time pressure, while lower frequencies caused some users to shift their attention to perceiving changes in size. However, the combination of high-frequency flashing and large size also involved limitations, as it could lead to perceptual fatigue and confusion in judgment. As one user  
Figure 6: Mean user-perceived urgency of Study 1. Figure 7: Mean user-perceived confidence of Study 1.  
observed, \"When the light flashes intensely, it's hard to tell whether the change comes from the frequency or the size. I feel overwhelmed by the flashing and have to make an immediate decision\". The user feedback highlights a trade-off between the intuitive nature of haptic feedback and the stronger urgency signals from visual feedback, suggesting that an optimal system should balance perceptual effectiveness with user comfort to avoid cognitive overload during critical decision-making moments.