Eye Gaze-Informed and Context-Aware Pedestrian Trajectory Prediction in Shared Spaces with Automated Shuttles: A Virtual Reality Study
Organizations: Department of Technology, Management and Economics at the Technical University of Denmark. · Department of Transport & Planning, Civil Engineering Geosciences at Delft University of Technology.
Abstract
To address this gap, we conduct a Virtual Reality experiment in which pedestrians interact with automated shuttles under varying approach angles (45°, 90°, 135°) and continuous-traffic conditions (single shuttle, two shuttles with 3 or 5-second gaps), collecting synchronized motion, eye gaze, and head orientation data. To investigate to what extent, under what conditions, and in what form fine-grained eye gaze is informative for pedestrian motion prediction, we develop a multi-modal prediction model that fuses these signals through modality-specific encoders, and systematically ablate gaze representations against head orientation and situational context. We report three main results. First, the predictive value of eye gaze is angle-dependent and tightly coupled with eye-head-body coordination: at acute angles where pedestrians actively redirect gaze to acquire the shuttle, eye gaze carries information that head orientation alone misses. Second, continuous gaze orientation outperforms categorical semantic fixation labels, with the optimal encoding frame (global or body-relative) depending on whether gaze is used alone or jointly with context. Third, eye gaze and situational context provide complementary predictive information: their combination reduces final displacement error (FDE) by 8.47%, close to the sum of their individual contributions. Together, these findings highlight the value of incorporating human perceptual signals into pedestrian behavior prediction and motivate a human-centered complement to vehicle-centric modeling approaches. Our code is available at https://github.com/danyayay/GazeX.git.
Figures & tables
| Category | Representation | Description | Frame | |
| Eye orientation | Eye-in-space | Absolute eye direction angle in the world coordinate system. | Global | 1 |
| Eye-in-walking | Eye direction angle relative to the pedestrian’s walking direction. | Local | 1 | |
| Eye vislet | Unit-circle projection of eye direction, avoiding angular discontinuity [ 3 ] . | Global | 2 | |
| Semantic targets | Gaze events | One-hot encoded label: attention, saccade, or noise. | – | 3 |
| Presence of attention | Binary indicator: whether gaze is on any task-related object. | – | 1 | |
| Attention on traffic | Binary indicator: whether gaze is on shuttles (vs. other objects). | – | 1 |
| Category | Metric | Description |
| Movement | Gap selection | Gap chosen for crossing: before first shuttle, between shuttles, or after last shuttle. |
| Waiting time | Time from trial start to last movement initiation. | |
| Hesitation | Initiation count | Number of crossing attempts, registered when velocity exceeds the initiation threshold (Sec. V ). |
| Backward count | Number of backward steps, registered when velocity falls below the backward threshold. | |
| Deviation | Mean deviation | Average lateral offset from the straight-line path connecting start and goal. |
| Max. deviation | Maximum lateral offset from the straight-line path. |
| Shuttle behavior | eHMI | Approach angle | Continuous traffic | |||||||
| Measure | Non-yield | Yield | Absent | Present | 45° | 90° | 135° | 1 shuttle | 2 sh.(3 s) | 2 sh.(5 s) |
| Movement behavior | ||||||||||
| Gap: before first shuttle [n] | 82 | 261 | 178 | 165 | 117 | 106 | 120 | 101 | 121 | 121 |
| Gap: between shuttles [n] | 109 | 4 | 54 | 59 | 25 | 51 | 37 | 79 | 2 | 32 |
| Gap: after shuttles [n] | 80 | 1 | 37 | 44 | 31 | 26 | 24 | 0 | 55 | 26 |
| Waiting time [s] | 6.7 (4.3) | 4.3 (3.3) | 5.5 (4.1) | 5.5 (4.0) | 5.5 (4.0) | 5.7 (3.9) | 5.3 (4.2) | 5.0 (3.2) | 6.0 (4.4) | 5.5 (4.3) |
| Deterministic prediction | Min 20 prediction | ||||
| Category | Model configuration | ADE | FDE | ADE | FDE |
| — | Baseline | 7.09 | 23.90 | 3.31 (0.01) | 11.17 (0.12) |
| Eye orientation | + Eye-in-space | 7.00 1.19% | 23.32 2.42% | 3.31 (0.01) -0.0 | 10.90 (0.10) 2.38% |
| + Eye-in-walking | 6.93 2.18% | 23.28 2.57% | 3.27 (0.02) 1.16% | 10.94 (0.08) 2.05% | |
| + Eye vislet | 6.81 3.84% | 22.95 3.95% | 3.21 (0.00) 2.95% | 10.74 (0.07) 3.84% | |
| Semantic targets | + Gaze events | 7.14 0.73% | 24.13 0.98% | 3.37 (0.02) 1.77% | 11.34 (0.11) 1.53% |
| Model A | Model B | Diff (A B) | Boot 95% CI | Boot | Wilcox | Perm | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| + Eye vislet | Baseline | ||||||
| + Head-in-walking | Baseline | ||||||
| + Eye vislet | + Head-in-walking | ||||||
| + Eye-in-walking+context | + Eye vislet | ||||||
| + Eye-in-walking+context | + Context |
| Metric | Type | 45° | 90° | 135° | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADE | Baseline | 8.39 | 6.23 | 6.92 | 7.09 |
| + Head (head-in-walking) | 8.18 3.09% | 6.10 2.09% | 6.73 2.83% | 6.91 2.55% | |
| + Eye (eye vislet) | 7.94 5.40% | 6.08 2.30% | 6.66 3.73% | 6.81 3.95% | |
| + Context | 8.05 4.09% | 5.99 3.87% | 6.97 0.75% | 6.90 2.62% | |
| + Eye (eye-in-walking) + context | 7.83 6.75% | 5.73 7.96% | 6.57 5.06% | 6.62 6.59% | |
| FDE | Baseline | 27.23 | 21.30 | 23.89 | 23.90 |
| Measure | Subscale | Mean | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
| SSQ [ 70 ] | Nausea | 14.74 | 26.13 |
| Oculomotor | 17.09 | 22.76 | |
| Disorientation | 35.48 | 35.55 | |
| Total | 164.54 | 175.30 | |
| PQ [ 71 ] | Involvement | 5.71 | 0.70 |
| Sensory fidelity | 5.13 | 1.00 |
| Area | Paper | Gaze/Head Representations and Metrics | Model | Main Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pedestrian trajectory prediction | [ 3 ] | Head orientation is represented as vislets, defined as short sequences of head pose estimation. | LSTM | Head pose correlates strongly with movement at high speeds, although this correlation weakens when pedestrians slow down. |
| [ 6 ] | Head pose for pedestrian’s awareness using whether there is eye contact. | LSTM | Jointly using motion and head pose achieves lower prediction error. | |
| [ 7 ] | Head and body poses | LSTM, cVAE | Including head and body orientation significantly improves short-term prediction (1-2s), but not for long-term prediction (3-4s). | |
| [ 8 ] | Relative yaw angle between two agents for interaction modeling and used as an edge attribute within its graph. | GAT | Preserving these spatial relationships through edge attributes (including relative yaw) is vital when using exclusive coordinate systems. | |
| Locomotion prediction | [ 60 ] | Eye yaw and pitch angle, relative to current position. | LSTM | Benefit of eye gaze data depended on the task and environment. Situations with changes in walking speed benefits from eye gaze data. |
| [ 59 ] | Eye yaw and pitch angles. Reference frame is set with forward axis being as the yaw orientation at the point of prediction. | LSTM, Transformer | Intrinsic data alone is enough for locomotion prediction. Eye-tracking provides better predictive cues than head orientation alone. |
| Characteristic | Category | Number of responses (%) |
| Gender | Male | 27 (52.9) |
| Female | 24 (47.1) | |
| Dominant hand | Right | 47 (92.2) |
| Left | 4 0 (7.8) | |
| Education level | High school or equiv. | 2 0 (3.9) |
| Bachelor’s or equiv. | 19 (37.2) |
Pedestrian Trajectory Prediction
Pedestrian trajectory prediction forecasts where people will move from their observed motion and surrounding context.
See all 36 papers