Discussion
To be improved. The reader wants to know: 1- how ASD participants are crossing compared to NT 2- how we interpret the differences in terms of cognitive processes thanks to behaviors, gaze data and neural patterns 3- What does it bring to the existing knowledge on ASD interacting with technology 4- What does it bring to the existing knowledge on ASD in terms of road safety. 5- What are the limits and what should be done in the future.
multimodal
? to be defined
pedestrians under VarPlus condition.
check statistics with Emanuelle. Great job for fNIRS analyses !
Figure
add legend, check labelles in the figure
conditions
report stats
highlighting spatial heterogeneity in group differences
delete
Pupil dilation responses indicated reduced sensitivity in ASD participants across conditions
apply the statical routine as describe above
aligning with hypo-arousal theories (Zhao, Liu, and Wei 2022).
move to discussion
main effect of Group emerge
report statistics
ideal
the center of the crossing gap
Temporal Error
rename as crossing position
ideal
delete
ideal
delete
The result was congruent with our previous finding on Crossing Start Time stating that ASD participants started later their crossing.
mode to discussion
ideal
delete
ideal
delete
F(2, 94) = 3.43, p = .036, ηp2=0.068,
replicate the same statistical description as before
One potential reason for the null results lies in the data quality: the current deviation metric is calculated based on the instantaneous spatial relation between pedestrians and approaching vehicles. In our simulation, vehicle position data were updated at a resolution of 4-meter intervals, which introduced temporal imprecision and resulted in sparse or missing current deviation estimates in many trials, especially in ASD group where we already have limited number of participants.
you are discussing the results that should go in the discussion section. Plus there is a significant effet of time, and possibly an interaction timegroupcondition
Group ( F(1, 6) = .007, p = .934), no significant main effect of Condition (F(2, 12) = .693, p = .519), and no significant Group × Condition interaction (F(2, 12) = .133, p = .877).
that's it ! add the outcome of the time factor and it will be perfect
We examined current deviation—a behavioral measure reflecting whether pedestrians were adjusting their speed appropriately relative to vehicle positions
section 2.3
Notably, we found no significant group differences in crossing duration (F(1, 669) = 0, p = .99), suggesting intact motor execution in ASD group, once started crossing.
as suggested in my previous revision, you must be systematic here. that is to say: 1- briefly describe the statical analysis made 2- present the outcome for the group effect, the condition effet and interaction between these factors 3- present post-hoc is needed
To evaluate potential group differences in motor execution during the road-crossing task, we analyzed also the Crossing duration that participants spent within the potential collision zone—the centered area in crossing, superposed with the trajectory of the approaching vehicles.
delete. Explanations about variable should be presented in the corresponding method section
(F(1,48) = 5.997, p = .018, ηp2 = .111
ajoute ici les moyenne et écart type pour ASD et NT groups so that the readers can appreciate the difference between groups
participants in both the ASD and NT groups initiated crossing earlier under the VarPlus condition compared to the other two conditions. No significant difference was observed between the Const and VarMinus conditions (p > .05). These findings suggest that the increasing physical crossing opportunity in the VarPlus condition—despite identical temporal crossing opportunities across all conditions—promoted earlier initiation of crossing behavior.
a garder dans le texte. Supprime la figure 6
strongly
supp
. This study addresses that gap by investigating behavioral, physiological, and neural responses of autistic and neurotypical adults as they interact with AVs in a simulated road-crossing scenario.
l'intro est excellente et hyper claire, je pense toutefois qu'il manque une introduction aux 3 conditions expérimentales et aux hypothèses liées au groupe et trois conditions expérimentales. Surement deux petits paragraphes à ajouter
and its portability makes it ideal for mobility studies involving real-time interaction in simulated or naturalistic environments.
a supprimer?
to indicate
associated wirth
These comparative findings suggest distinct cognitive processing when interpreting AV behavior in crossing senarios.
phrase à améliorer je pense, on ne sait pas ce que signifie comparative et le sens général est un peu obscur
VarPlus condition
on ne sait pas encore ce que c'est que cette condition. Reprend increasing physical crossing
Mind the Gap: How Autistic Pedestrians Interact with Autonomous Vehicles
le titre est excellent !