# 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 2 (see Table 3), directional haptic feedback utilized combinations of small (0.5 Hz) and medium (2.0 Hz) in both dynamic and static conditions, while Visual Feedback consistently used small (0.5 Hz) and small (4.0 Hz) combinations in both states. These parameter combinations ensured both the timeliness of decisions and an appropriate level of alertness while avoiding discomfort caused by excessive urgency. Beyond technical parameters, we also examined subjective user preferences, which revealed distinct patterns across different crossing scenarios: 62% of participants preferred visual feedback in the traffic light crossing scenario, while 81% favored haptic feedback in the vehicle crossing scenario. These contrasting preferences across different street-crossing contexts suggest that combining both feedback types may offer complementary benefits for comprehensive crossing assistance. In addition to preference data, we analyzed performance metrics to further understand the optimal implementation approaches. Although users' overall decision times were shorter in static states during Study 2, further analysis showed no significant time difference between dynamic and static modes for haptic feedback (\(p>\) 0.05), whereas visual feedback was significantly faster under static conditions than dynamic (\(p<\) 0.001). Consequently, haptic feedback may adopt either dynamic or static approaches based on user preference, whereas visual feedback under static conditions appears optimal for efficient decision-making regarding vehicle movement. \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{8}{*}{Haptic Feedback} & \multirow{2}{*}{Large} & Urgency Score & 2.53 & 3.12 & 3.65 & 3.82 \\  & & Cross Rate & 25\% & 25\% & 18.75\% & 18.75\% \\  & & Decision Time & 4.80 s & 3.62 s & 3.41 s & 3.30 s \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multirow{2}{*}{Medium} & Urgency Score & 1.88 & 2.41 & 3.00 & 3.65 \\  & & Cross Rate & 62.5\% & 62.5\% & 37.5\% & 31.25\% \\  & & Decision Time & 5.26 s & 4.80 s & 4.96 s & 4.51 s \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multirow{2}{*}{Small} & Urgency Score & 1.24 & 1.59 & 2.24 & 3.00 \\  & & Cross Rate & 81.25\% & 87.5\% & 62.5\% & 31.25\% \\  & & Decision Time & 6.25 s & 4.32 s & 3.94 s & 5.06 s \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Visual Feedback} & \multirow{2}{*}{Large} & Urgency Score & 2.41 & 3.12 & 3.76 & 4.00 \\  & & Cross Rate & 81.25\% & 43.75\% & 18.75\% & 6.25\% \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Decision Time & 4.13 s & 3.99 s & 3.17 s & 2.80 s \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-7}  & \multirow{2}{*}{Medium} & Urgency Score & 1.88 & 2.41 & 3.12 & 3.65 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Cross Rate & 87.5\% & 50\% & 12.5\% & 6.25\% \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Decision Time & 4.19 s & 4.04 s & 3.23 s & 2.95 s \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-7}  & \multirow{2}{*}{Small} & Urgency Score & 1.18 & 1.88 & 2.47 & 3.18 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Cross Rate & 87.5\% & 62.5\% & 25\% & 6.25\% \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Decision Time & 5.90 s & 3.99 s & 3.51 s & 2.85 s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: The urgency score represents users’ perceived urgency level, the cross rate is the percentage of crossing decisions; the decision time indicates the average decision time in seconds. Green-shaded cells denote high cross rates (>85%) suitable for encouraging crossing. Yellow-shaded cells denote low cross rates (<30%) effective for deterring crossing.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Effects of feedback parameters on user responses in Study 1.