Vehicle-mounted font evaluation method, vehicle-mounted information system, and vehicle

Abstract

The invention provides a vehicle-mounted font evaluation method, a vehicle-mounted information system and a vehicle. The vehicle-mounted font evaluation method comprises the following steps: acquiring an eye movement data index for a to-be-evaluated vehicle-mounted font; and based on the eye movement data index, determining an evaluation result for the vehicle-mounted font, the evaluation result being used for representing font readability and / or visual load. Therefore, according to the vehicle-mounted font evaluation method, the evaluation result for the to-be-evaluated vehicle-mounted font can be obtained based on the obtained eye movement data index for the to-be-evaluated vehicle-mounted font; the problem that a unified standard is difficult to provide due to the fact that the influence difference of subjective feelings brought by subjective questionnaires and user interviews on evaluation results is large is solved, the method for objectively evaluating the vehicle-mounted fonts is provided, the unified standard for evaluating the vehicle-mounted fonts is formed, and engineering standardization is facilitated.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of vehicle control technology, and in particular to an in-vehicle font evaluation method, an in-vehicle information system, and a vehicle. Background Technology

[0002] With the increasing number of vehicles on the road and the booming development of the automotive industry, the structural forms of in-vehicle information systems have also diversified. In in-vehicle information systems, font design is a crucial factor affecting driver operating efficiency, visual attention allocation, and driving safety.

[0003] In related technologies, the evaluation methods for in-vehicle fonts often rely on subjective questionnaires and user interviews. However, since different users participating in questionnaires or interviews may have significantly different feelings about the same in-vehicle font, it is difficult to form a unified evaluation standard.

[0004] Therefore, how to address the significant differences in the impact of subjective feelings from subjective questionnaires and user interviews on evaluation results, which makes it difficult to provide a unified and objective evaluation standard, has become a technical problem that urgently needs to be solved by those skilled in the art. Summary of the Invention

[0005] In view of the above problems, this application provides an in-vehicle font evaluation method, an in-vehicle information system, and a vehicle that overcomes or at least partially solves the above technical problems. The technical solution is as follows: Firstly, this application provides a method for evaluating in-vehicle fonts, including: Obtain eye-tracking data metrics for the in-vehicle fonts to be evaluated; Based on the eye-tracking data metrics, an evaluation result is determined for the in-vehicle font, and the evaluation result is used to characterize the font readability and / or visual load.

[0006] In the above technical solution, the in-vehicle font evaluation method can obtain the evaluation result of the in-vehicle font to be evaluated based on the eye-tracking data indicators obtained for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated, and realize the evaluation of font readability and / or visual load. This avoids the problem of difficulty in providing a unified standard caused by the large difference in the subjective feelings brought about by subjective questionnaires and user interviews. Instead, it provides an objective method for evaluating in-vehicle fonts, forming a unified standard for in-vehicle font evaluation, which is conducive to engineering standardization.

[0007] Optionally, in some possible implementations, the method for evaluating in-vehicle fonts includes obtaining eye-tracking data metrics for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated, comprising: In dynamic or static scenarios, obtain at least one readability index and / or at least one visual load index for the vehicle-mounted font; The dynamic scene includes a scene where the vehicle is in motion, and the static scene includes a scene where the vehicle is stationary; the readability index is used to characterize the readability of the font, and the visual load index is used to characterize the visual load of the font.

[0008] In the above technical solution, the vehicle font evaluation method can be applied not only to static scenes but also to dynamic scenes. Therefore, compared with the subjective font evaluation in related technologies that only perform evaluations in static states, this vehicle font evaluation method can be used in dynamic driving environments to evaluate whether vehicle fonts are suitable for dynamic driving environments. This makes it closer to the real-world use of vehicle fonts (such as driving) scenarios and improves the accuracy of evaluating the readability and / or visual load of vehicle fonts in different scenarios.

[0009] Optionally, in some possible implementations, the method for evaluating in-vehicle fonts includes obtaining at least one readability metric and / or at least one visual load metric for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated, comprising: Obtain at least one of the following for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated: first gaze time, average gaze duration, number of gazes, and saccade path entropy; And / or, obtain at least one of the following for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated: blink rate, task completion time, error rate, and pupil change.

[0010] In the above technical solution, at least one readability indicator is obtained by acquiring at least one of the following for the vehicle-mounted font to be evaluated: first fixation time, average fixation duration, number of fixations, and saccade path entropy. This facilitates subsequent processing to obtain a readability evaluation result for the vehicle-mounted font to be evaluated. And / or, at least one visual load indicator is obtained by acquiring at least one of the following for the vehicle-mounted font to be evaluated: blink rate, task completion time, error rate, and pupil change. This facilitates subsequent processing to obtain a visual load evaluation result for the vehicle-mounted font to be evaluated, thereby enabling an objective evaluation of the readability and / or visual load of the vehicle-mounted font to be evaluated.

[0011] Optionally, in some possible implementations, the method for evaluating in-vehicle fonts, in which the evaluation result for the in-vehicle font is determined based on the eye-tracking data indicators, includes: Each of the eye-tracking data indicators is normalized to obtain the normalized result; Based on the normalization results, and combined with the weights of the corresponding eye-tracking data indicators, the readability evaluation results and / or visual load evaluation results of a single font to be evaluated are determined. Based on the readability evaluation results and / or the visual load evaluation results, and in combination with the corresponding readability weights and / or visual load weights, a comprehensive evaluation result is determined; the comprehensive evaluation result serves as the evaluation result for the in-vehicle font.

[0012] In the above technical solution, by normalizing the eye-tracking data indicators, the influence of individual differences, device differences, scene differences, and differences in units of measurement on the evaluation results can be eliminated. This makes the eye-tracking data indicators of different test samples (i.e., different types of in-vehicle fonts) and different scenes comparable, thereby more accurately assessing the impact of fonts on visual behavior and improving the accuracy of in-vehicle font evaluation. Furthermore, by combining the weights of different eye-tracking data indicators, as well as readability weights and / or visual load weights, a final comprehensive evaluation result is obtained, enabling an objective and quantitative evaluation of in-vehicle fonts.

[0013] Optionally, in some possible implementations, the method for evaluating in-vehicle fonts includes determining the readability evaluation result by: The first intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the first fixation time by the first weight; The normalized result of the average fixation duration is multiplied by the second weight to obtain the second intermediate quantity; The third intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the number of fixations by the third weight; The fourth intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the scan path entropy by the fourth weight; The first intermediate value, the second intermediate value, the third intermediate value, and the fourth intermediate value are summed to obtain the readability evaluation score, and the readability evaluation score is used as the readability evaluation result. The weights, ordered from largest to smallest, are: first weight, second weight, third weight, and fourth weight.

[0014] In the above technical solution, based on the normalized result of the readability index and combined with the weight of the corresponding eye-tracking data index, the readability evaluation result of a single font to be evaluated can be objectively and quantitatively determined.

[0015] Optionally, in some possible implementations, the method for evaluating in-vehicle fonts includes determining the visual load evaluation result by: The fifth intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the blink rate by the fifth weight; The sixth intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the task completion time by the sixth weight; The seventh intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the error rate by the seventh weight; The eighth intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the pupil change by the eighth weight; The visual load score is obtained by summing the fifth intermediate value, the sixth intermediate value, the seventh intermediate value, and the eighth intermediate value, and the visual load score is used as the visual load evaluation result. The weights, ordered from largest to smallest, are: fifth weight, sixth weight, seventh weight, and eighth weight.

[0016] In the above technical solution, based on the normalized result of the visual load index and combined with the weight of the corresponding eye-tracking data index, the visual load evaluation result of a single font to be evaluated can be objectively and quantitatively determined.

[0017] Optionally, in some possible implementations, the method for evaluating in-vehicle fonts includes determining the comprehensive evaluation result by: The ninth intermediate value is obtained by multiplying the readability evaluation result by the ninth weight; The tenth intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the visual load assessment result by the tenth weight. The ninth intermediate quantity and the tenth intermediate quantity are summed to obtain the comprehensive evaluation score, which is used as the comprehensive evaluation result. The ninth weight is greater than the tenth weight.

[0018] In the above technical solution, based on the readability evaluation results and / or visual load evaluation results, combined with the corresponding readability weights and / or visual load weights, a comprehensive evaluation result is quantitatively and objectively determined. This comprehensive evaluation result serves as the evaluation result for in-vehicle fonts, enabling an objective and quantitative evaluation of the readability and / or visual load of in-vehicle fonts.

[0019] Optionally, in some possible implementations, the in-vehicle font evaluation method further includes, before obtaining eye-tracking data metrics for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated: Receive user input for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated; After determining the evaluation result for the in-vehicle font, the in-vehicle font evaluation method further includes: Based on the evaluation results, font recommendation results are generated; the font recommendation results are used to recommend target in-vehicle fonts to users, and the evaluation results of the target in-vehicle fonts are above the preset result level.

[0020] In the above technical solution, when a user needs to update the in-vehicle font, the steps of the above in-vehicle font evaluation method are executed, and a target in-vehicle font is recommended to the user. The in-vehicle font can be recommended to the user based on objective and quantitative evaluation results, and the recommendation accuracy is good.

[0021] Secondly, this application also provides an in-vehicle information system configured with a target font; The target font is a font whose evaluation result is above a preset result level, obtained from any of the in-vehicle font evaluation methods provided in the first aspect.

[0022] Thirdly, this application also provides a vehicle, which includes any of the in-vehicle information systems provided in the second aspect; Alternatively, the vehicle may be equipped with an in-vehicle font evaluation model, which is configured to perform the steps of any of the in-vehicle font evaluation methods provided in the first aspect.

[0023] The technical solution provided in this application has the following advantages compared with the prior art: The in-vehicle font evaluation method, in-vehicle information system, and vehicle provided in this application include: acquiring eye-tracking data indicators for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated; and determining an evaluation result for the in-vehicle font based on the eye-tracking data indicators, wherein the evaluation result is used to characterize font readability and / or visual load. Therefore, the in-vehicle font evaluation method can obtain an evaluation result for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated based on the acquired eye-tracking data indicators. This avoids the problem of significant differences in the subjective feelings brought about by subjective questionnaires and user interviews, which make it difficult to provide a unified standard. Instead, it provides an objective method for evaluating in-vehicle fonts, forming a unified standard for in-vehicle font evaluation, which is beneficial for engineering standardization.

[0024] The above description is merely an overview of the technical solution of this application. In order to better understand the technical means of this application and to implement it in accordance with the contents of the specification, and to make the above and other objects, features and advantages of this application more obvious and understandable, specific embodiments of this application are given below. Attached Figure Description

[0025] The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and form part of this specification, illustrate embodiments consistent with this application and, together with the description, serve to explain the principles of this application.

[0026] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of this application or the prior art, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, for those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0027] Various other advantages and benefits will become apparent to those skilled in the art upon reading the detailed description of the embodiments listed below. The accompanying drawings are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to limit the scope of this application. Furthermore, the same reference numerals denote the same parts throughout the drawings. In the drawings: Figure 1 A flowchart illustrating an in-vehicle font evaluation method provided in an embodiment of this application is shown; Figure 2 This paper shows a schematic diagram of the structure of an in-vehicle information system provided in an embodiment of this application; Figure 3 This application provides a schematic diagram of the structure of a vehicle according to an embodiment. Figure 4 This illustration shows a structural schematic diagram of an in-vehicle font evaluation device provided in an embodiment of this application; Figure 5 A schematic diagram of the structure of an electronic device provided in an embodiment of this application is shown. Detailed Implementation

[0028] Exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure will now be described in more detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. While exemplary embodiments of the present disclosure are shown in the drawings, it should be understood that the present disclosure may be implemented in various forms and should not be limited to the embodiments set forth herein. Rather, these embodiments are provided so that this disclosure will be thorough and complete, and will fully convey the scope of the disclosure to those skilled in the art.

[0029] With the increasing number of vehicles on the road and the booming development of the automotive industry, the structural forms of in-vehicle information systems have also diversified. In in-vehicle information systems, font design is a crucial factor affecting driver operating efficiency, visual attention allocation, and driving safety.

[0030] In related technologies, the evaluation methods for in-vehicle fonts often rely on subjective questionnaires and user interviews. However, since different users participating in questionnaires or interviews may have significantly different feelings about the same in-vehicle font, it is difficult to form a unified evaluation standard.

[0031] Therefore, how to address the significant differences in the impact of subjective feelings from subjective questionnaires and user interviews on evaluation results, which makes it difficult to provide a unified and objective evaluation standard, has become a technical problem that urgently needs to be solved by those skilled in the art.

[0032] To address or at least partially address the aforementioned issues, this application provides a method for objectively evaluating in-vehicle fonts based on eye-tracking data indicators. Specifically, by acquiring eye-tracking data indicators for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated, an evaluation result is obtained for the font, thereby evaluating the font readability and / or visual load. This method avoids the problem of difficulty in providing a unified standard due to the significant differences in the subjective feelings brought about by subjective questionnaires and user interviews. Instead, it forms an objective and unified standard for evaluating in-vehicle fonts, which is conducive to engineering standardization.

[0033] The following description, in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, provides an exemplary illustration of the vehicle font evaluation method, vehicle information system, and vehicle provided in the embodiments of this application.

[0034] For example, Figure 1 The illustration shows a flowchart of an in-vehicle font evaluation method provided in an embodiment of this application. This in-vehicle font evaluation method can be executed by an in-vehicle font evaluation device. The in-vehicle font evaluation device can be built into a vehicle. For example, the in-vehicle font evaluation device can be built into an in-vehicle controller (such as a vehicle controller or other controllers installed in the vehicle).

[0035] In some application scenarios, the in-vehicle font evaluation device can be installed in an electronic device or cloud platform that communicates with the vehicle. The electronic device can receive eye-tracking data indicators for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated transmitted by the vehicle, and perform an in-vehicle font evaluation method based on these indicators to determine the evaluation result of the in-vehicle font to be evaluated, and then feed the evaluation result back to the vehicle. For example, the electronic device can be a mobile terminal, such as a mobile phone, but is not limited thereto.

[0036] In the above application scenarios, the vehicle font evaluation method can be used before the vehicle leaves the factory, during the process of configuring the vehicle font; or, after the vehicle leaves the factory, during the process of the user initializing the vehicle information system and reconfiguring the vehicle font; or, during the process of the user reconfiguring the vehicle font after the vehicle has been used for a period of time; or in other scenarios where the vehicle font needs to be evaluated, which is not limited here.

[0037] In some application scenarios, the in-vehicle font evaluation device can also be installed in an electronic device independent of the vehicle and not communicating with the vehicle. This electronic device can be dedicated to evaluating in-vehicle fonts, evaluating them before they are configured in the vehicle, and obtaining the evaluation results. For example, this electronic device can be a driving simulator, used to simulate a user driving a vehicle or a stationary vehicle scenario, where passengers are reading text prompts on the display interface of an in-vehicle information system. In this case, eye-tracking data indicators for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated can be acquired, and an in-vehicle font evaluation method can be executed based on these indicators to determine the evaluation result of the in-vehicle font. Furthermore, the in-vehicle font that can be configured in the vehicle can be determined based on the evaluation results. In this application scenario, the in-vehicle font evaluation method can be used during the process of configuring in-vehicle fonts before the vehicle leaves the factory.

[0038] refer to Figure 1 The evaluation method for in-vehicle fonts specifically includes the following steps.

[0039] S11. Obtain eye-tracking data metrics for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated.

[0040] In this embodiment of the application, the vehicle font is a font configured in the vehicle. The vehicle font is mainly set for vehicle information systems, such as car cockpit display scenarios. The core goal of setting the vehicle font is to ensure driving safety, while taking into account high-speed visual recognition (including readability and visual load), anti-interference and screen adaptability. It is significantly different from the setting logic of fonts in small terminal devices such as ordinary mobile phones and computers.

[0041] In this embodiment of the application, the in-vehicle font to be evaluated is the in-vehicle font that needs to be evaluated. The in-vehicle font to be evaluated can be a font that the vehicle manufacturer plans to configure in the vehicle, or a font that the user wants to update in the vehicle.

[0042] For example, the in-vehicle fonts to be evaluated may include font type one, font type two, and font type three that the vehicle manufacturer plans to configure in the vehicle. The in-vehicle font evaluation method can obtain evaluation results for font type one, font type two, and font type three respectively based on eye-tracking data indicators for the above-mentioned different font types. The font that meets the aforementioned in-vehicle font setting objectives can be selected and configured in the vehicle according to the evaluation results. The font that meets the aforementioned in-vehicle font setting objectives may be, for example, a font that meets the requirements of high readability and low visual load. For example, the font with the highest readability and the lowest visual load among the three different types of fonts can be selected and configured in the vehicle.

[0043] In this embodiment, eye-tracking data indicators are parameters used to quantify and analyze visual attention distribution and cognitive processing efficiency by capturing eye movement states with an eye tracker. The specific types of eye-tracking data indicators used in this embodiment are detailed below. In this embodiment, the eye tracker is communicatively connected to an in-vehicle font evaluation device. The eye tracker collects eye-tracking data indicators and uploads them to the in-vehicle font evaluation device; correspondingly, the in-vehicle font evaluation device can obtain these eye-tracking data indicators.

[0044] In this embodiment of the application, the eye-tracking data index for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated is the eye-tracking data index of the driver (or the person participating in the test) during the process of reading the text prompt information displayed based on the in-vehicle font to be evaluated in a scenario where the in-vehicle information system (or the information display system of the driving simulator) uses the in-vehicle font to be evaluated.

[0045] In this embodiment of the application, obtaining eye-tracking data indicators for the vehicle-mounted font to be evaluated may specifically include: collecting eye-tracking data indicators for the vehicle-mounted font to be evaluated based on an eye tracker and transmitting them to the vehicle-mounted font evaluation device; correspondingly, the vehicle-mounted font evaluation device obtains the eye-tracking data indicators for the vehicle-mounted font to be evaluated to prepare data for subsequent steps.

[0046] S12. Based on eye-tracking data metrics, determine the evaluation results for in-vehicle fonts. The evaluation results are used to characterize font readability and / or visual load.

[0047] In this embodiment, the evaluation result for in-vehicle fonts refers to the result of evaluating whether the font is suitable for in-vehicle use. For example, the evaluation result for in-vehicle fonts mainly includes the evaluation result for the readability and / or visual load of the in-vehicle font to be evaluated. Since the evaluation result can be confirmed by the in-vehicle font evaluation device based on the acquired eye-tracking data indicators, without the need for questionnaires or interviews, the influence of the subjective feelings of the testers (or users) participating in the questionnaires or interviews on the evaluation result is avoided, and an objective evaluation of in-vehicle fonts is achieved.

[0048] In some application scenarios, the evaluation result can be represented by different evaluation levels, such as Excellent, Good, Acceptable, or Poor; or, the evaluation result can be represented by a recommendation level, such as Recommendation Level 1, Recommendation Level 2, Recommendation Level 3, and Recommendation Level 4, where Recommendation Level 1 represents the most recommended use, Recommendation Level 2 represents a recommended use, Recommendation Level 3 represents an acceptable use, and Recommendation Level 4 represents a not recommended use; or, the evaluation result can be represented by an evaluation score, such as a percentage system, specifically including 80 points and above (including 80 points), 60 to 80 points (including 60 points, excluding 80 points), 40 to 60 points (including 40 points, excluding 60 points), and below 40 points (excluding 40 points). The higher the evaluation score, the more suitable the font is for vehicles. For example, 80 points and above represents the most suitable font for vehicles (most recommended use), 60 to 80 points represents a recommended use, 40 to 60 points represents an acceptable use, and below 40 points represents a not recommended use.

[0049] In other application scenarios, the evaluation results can also be expressed in other forms, which will not be elaborated or limited here.

[0050] In this embodiment of the application, the evaluation result for the in-vehicle font is determined as follows: based on the obtained eye-tracking data indicators for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated, the eye-tracking data indicators are processed (see details below) to obtain the corresponding evaluation result.

[0051] In this embodiment, the readability of the in-vehicle font refers to the ability of the driver (or passenger) to quickly, accurately, and unambiguously read the text prompts displayed by the in-vehicle information system in dynamic scenarios (e.g., driving scenarios) or static scenarios (e.g., parking scenarios). The better the readability of the in-vehicle font, the faster, more accurately, and unambiguously the driver (or passenger) can read the text prompts displayed by the in-vehicle information system.

[0052] In this embodiment, the visual load of in-vehicle fonts refers to the total amount of resources required by the visual perception system and the brain's cognitive system when a driver (or passenger) reads text prompts displayed by the in-vehicle information system in dynamic or static scenarios. Generally, the higher the visual load, the longer the driver's distraction time, the faster the visual fatigue, and the higher the driving safety risk.

[0053] In some application scenarios, the above evaluation results can be used solely to characterize the readability of in-vehicle fonts, with priority given to fonts with good readability for use in vehicles. Alternatively, the above evaluation results can be used solely to characterize the visual load of in-vehicle fonts, with priority given to fonts with low visual load for use in vehicles. Or, the above evaluation results can be used to characterize both the readability and visual load of in-vehicle fonts, with priority given to fonts with good readability and low visual load for use in vehicles.

[0054] In this embodiment of the application, data processing is performed based on eye-tracking data indicators for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated, so as to obtain the evaluation results for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated, thereby achieving an objective evaluation of the readability and / or visual load of the in-vehicle font.

[0055] This application provides a method for objectively evaluating in-vehicle fonts based on eye-tracking data indicators. Specifically, it obtains evaluation results for the in-vehicle font based on the obtained eye-tracking data indicators for the font to be evaluated, thereby evaluating the readability and / or visual load of the font. This avoids the problem of difficulty in providing a unified standard caused by the large differences in the subjective feelings brought about by subjective questionnaires and user interviews. Instead, it forms an objective and unified standard for evaluating in-vehicle fonts, which is conducive to engineering standardization.

[0056] In some possible implementations, the in-vehicle font evaluation method involves acquiring eye-tracking data metrics for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated, which may specifically include: In dynamic or static scenarios, obtain at least one readability metric and / or at least one visual load metric for in-vehicle fonts.

[0057] In this embodiment, readability indicators are used to characterize the readability of a font and are used to obtain readability evaluation results after data processing, thereby achieving the readability evaluation of the font. For example, the number of readability indicators can be one, two, or more, and the specific number can be determined according to the evaluation accuracy requirements; the higher the evaluation accuracy requirements, the more readability indicators can be set. When this in-vehicle font evaluation method is configured in a vehicle, the setting of the number of readability indicators also needs to take into account the evaluation result feedback speed; the faster the feedback speed requirement, the fewer readability indicators can be set.

[0058] In this embodiment, visual load indicators are used to characterize the visual load of a font and are used to obtain readability evaluation results after data processing, thereby achieving visual load evaluation of the font. For example, the number of visual load indicators can be one, two, or more, and the specific number can be determined according to the evaluation accuracy requirements; the higher the evaluation accuracy requirements, the more visual load indicators can be set. When this in-vehicle font evaluation method is configured in a vehicle, the setting of the number of visual load indicators also needs to take into account the feedback speed of the evaluation results; the faster the feedback speed requirement, the fewer visual load indicators can be set.

[0059] In this embodiment, the dynamic scene includes a scene where the vehicle is in motion, i.e., a driving scene. In some application scenarios, when the in-vehicle font evaluation method is implemented based on a driving simulator, the dynamic scene may include a scene of driving the vehicle in the driving simulator. Alternatively, when the in-vehicle font evaluation method is configured in a vehicle, the dynamic scene may include a scene where the vehicle is in motion due to a driver driving the vehicle.

[0060] The font evaluation methods in related technologies cannot truly reflect visual behavior during driving. Due to time pressure and multitasking in actual driving, subjective evaluations are difficult to cover real driving scenarios. However, in this embodiment, by acquiring eye-tracking data indicators in driving scenarios and processing the data for in-vehicle font evaluation, it can reflect real visual behavior during driving, resulting in higher evaluation accuracy.

[0061] In this embodiment, the static scene includes a scene where the vehicle is stationary, i.e., a parking scene. In some application scenarios, when the in-vehicle font evaluation method is implemented based on a driving simulator, the static scene may include a scene where the vehicle is stationary, implemented in the driving simulator. Alternatively, when the in-vehicle font evaluation method is configured in a vehicle, the static scene may include a scene where the driver controls the vehicle to be stationary.

[0062] In this embodiment, the vehicle font evaluation method can be applied not only to static scenes but also to dynamic scenes. Therefore, compared with the subjective font evaluation in related technologies that only performs evaluation in static states, this vehicle font evaluation method can be used in dynamic driving environments to evaluate whether vehicle fonts are suitable for dynamic driving environments. This makes it closer to the real usage scenarios of vehicle fonts and improves the accuracy of evaluating the readability and / or visual load of vehicle fonts in different scenarios.

[0063] In some possible implementations, the in-vehicle font evaluation method involves obtaining at least one readability index and / or at least one visual load index for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated, including: Obtain at least one of the following for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated: first gaze time, average gaze duration, number of gazes, and saccade path entropy; And / or, obtain at least one of the following for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated: blink rate, task completion time, error rate, and pupil change.

[0064] In this embodiment of the application, the readability index includes at least one of the following: first fixation time, average fixation duration, number of fixations, and saccade entropy. That is, the readability index includes any one, any two, any three, or all four of the following: first fixation time, average fixation duration, number of fixations, and saccade entropy. It can be set based on the requirements of accuracy and timeliness of readability evaluation, and is not limited here.

[0065] Fixation Duration: The length of time the eyes remain focused on a particular element, reflecting the difficulty of information processing. Time-to-First-Fixation (TFF) is the time required for the first fixation on the target after the stimulus appears; specifically, it can be the time it takes for a driver to first fixate on a target word. Average Fixation Duration is the average of the times required for multiple single fixations on the target after the stimulus appears; specifically, it can be the average of the fixation times taken after the driver first fixates on the target word and then fixates on the same target word one or more times. Number of Fixations is the total number of times the same target word is fixed.

[0066] Among them, saccade refers to the rapid jumping of the eyes between different fixation points. Scanpath entropy is an indicator that quantifies the randomness and disorder of eye movement trajectories. Essentially, it reflects the attention allocation pattern of the driver when reading in-vehicle text by the magnitude of the entropy value. The higher the scanpath entropy, the more complex the search.

[0067] In this embodiment of the application, the visual load index includes at least one of blink rate, task completion time, error rate, and pupil change. That is, the visual load index includes any one, any two, any three, or all four of blink rate, task completion time, error rate, and pupil change. It can be set based on the requirements of accuracy and timeliness of visual load evaluation, and is not limited here.

[0068] Blink rate refers to the number of blinks per unit of time. For example, if the total test time is 10 minutes, the blink rate is calculated by dividing the total number of blinks in 10 minutes by 10. Task completion time is the time required to complete a click or action. Error rate represents the proportion of incorrect operations. Pupil dilation characterizes cognitive load; specifically, pupil dilation occurs when cognitive load increases, making it a sensitive indicator of psychological load.

[0069] In this embodiment, at least one readability indicator is obtained by acquiring at least one of the following for the vehicle-mounted font to be evaluated: first fixation time, average fixation duration, number of fixations, and saccade entropy. This facilitates subsequent processing to obtain a readability evaluation result for the vehicle-mounted font to be evaluated. And / or, at least one visual load indicator is obtained by acquiring at least one of the following for the vehicle-mounted font to be evaluated: blink rate, task completion time, error rate, and pupil change. This facilitates subsequent processing to obtain a visual load evaluation result for the vehicle-mounted font to be evaluated, thereby enabling an objective evaluation of the readability and / or visual load of the vehicle-mounted font to be evaluated.

[0070] In some possible implementations, the evaluation method for in-vehicle fonts determines the evaluation result based on eye-tracking data indicators, which may specifically include the following steps.

[0071] Step 1: Normalize each eye-tracking data indicator to obtain the normalized result.

[0072] In this embodiment of the application, the purpose of normalizing the eye-tracking data indicators is to eliminate the influence of individual differences, device differences, scene differences and dimensional differences on the evaluation results, so as to make the eye-tracking data indicators of different test samples (i.e., different types of in-vehicle fonts) and different scenes comparable, thereby more accurately evaluating the impact of fonts on visual behavior and improving the accuracy of in-vehicle font evaluation.

[0073] Eliminating individual differences mainly refers to the fact that different drivers have different basic eye movement characteristics (such as novice drivers generally have longer fixation time than experienced drivers, and different drivers may have different vision, eye movement habits, and cognitive levels). After normalization, the influence of individual factors can be removed, and the focus can be on the influence of the font itself on eye movement behavior, which is conducive to improving the accuracy of the evaluation results.

[0074] Eliminating equipment differences mainly refers to the fact that different models of eye trackers have different testing accuracies, resulting in differences in the absolute values ​​of the measured eye movement data indicators. Normalization can eliminate these equipment differences, thereby improving the accuracy of the evaluation results.

[0075] Eliminating scenario differences mainly refers to eliminating the impact of differences between different test scenarios on the evaluation results. Differences between different test scenarios can include static scenarios, dynamic scenarios, and differences in vehicle speed, light intensity, etc. between different dynamic scenarios.

[0076] Among them, the difference in dimensions refers to the fact that the physical units of different eye movement data indicators may be different. For example, the physical unit of fixation duration is generally milliseconds (ms), and the unit of fixation count is generally times. After normalization, different eye movement data indicators can be mapped to a unified interval, such as [0, 1] or [-1, 1], which facilitates the comprehensive analysis of multiple different eye movement data indicators and obtains a comprehensive evaluation result for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated.

[0077] In this embodiment of the application, the normalization processing of eye-tracking data indicators may specifically include: normalizing the eye-tracking data indicators using Min-Max normalization (linear normalization). For example, the formula for Min-Max normalization of eye-tracking data indicators is as follows: S_{i}=[X_{max}-X_{i}] / [X_{max}-X_{min}] Where S_{i} represents the normalized result of a certain eye-tracking data index, S_{i}∈[0,1], the closer S_{i} is to 1, the better the performance of the in-vehicle font for the corresponding eye-tracking data index; X_{i} represents the original value of the in-vehicle font for the eye-tracking data index, and X_{max} and X_{min} are the maximum and minimum values ​​of the eye-tracking data index among all fonts, respectively.

[0078] In other embodiments, the normalization of eye-tracking data indicators may also include: normalizing the eye-tracking data indicators such as first fixation time, number of fixations, blink rate, and task completion time obtained in the foregoing steps using mean normalization, Z-score normalization (standardization), Log transformation (logarithmic transformation), or other normalization methods known to those skilled in the art, without limitation.

[0079] Step 2: Based on the normalization results and the weights of the corresponding eye-tracking data indicators, determine the readability evaluation results and / or visual load evaluation results for a single font to be evaluated.

[0080] In this embodiment, different eye-tracking data indicators have different relative importance. Therefore, a corresponding weight is assigned to each eye-tracking data indicator, which represents the importance of the corresponding eye-tracking data indicator. Eye-tracking data indicators with higher importance are assigned a larger weight, while those with lower importance are assigned a smaller weight. This facilitates the combination of different eye-tracking data indicators and their importance to obtain a more accurate quantitative evaluation result.

[0081] For example, eye-tracking data metrics include readability metrics and / or visual load metrics. Readability metrics may include at least one of first fixation time, average fixation duration, number of fixations, and saccade entropy, and the weighted sum of all readability metrics may be 1. Visual load metrics may include at least one of blink rate, task completion time, error rate, and pupillary variation, and the weighted sum of all visual load metrics may be 1.

[0082] In some application scenarios, among the aforementioned eye-tracking data indicators, there may be eye-tracking data indicators with a weight of 0, meaning that the impact of these indicators on the evaluation results is negligible. For example, in the readability indicator, the weight of saccade entropy can be 0; in the visual load indicator, the weight of pupil change can be 0. In other application scenarios, the weights of different eye-tracking data indicators can be flexibly set according to the evaluation focus, which will not be elaborated upon or limited here.

[0083] In this embodiment of the application, after normalizing the eye-tracking data indicators and obtaining the corresponding normalized results, the readability evaluation results and / or visual load evaluation results can be quantitatively obtained by combining the weights of different eye-tracking data indicators. The readability evaluation results can be readability scores, and the visual load evaluation results can be visual load scores, thereby realizing the quantitative evaluation of the readability and visual load of in-vehicle fonts, which facilitates the quantitative comparison between different in-vehicle fonts.

[0084] Step 3: Based on the readability evaluation results and / or visual load evaluation results, and in combination with the corresponding readability weights and / or visual load weights, determine the comprehensive evaluation result; the comprehensive evaluation result serves as the evaluation result for in-vehicle fonts.

[0085] In this embodiment, the readability evaluation result is configured with a readability weight, and the visual load evaluation result is configured with a visual load weight. The sum of the readability weight and the visual load weight can be 1. By combining the readability evaluation result with the corresponding readability weight, and / or the visual load evaluation result with the corresponding visual load weight, a comprehensive evaluation result can be obtained. This comprehensive evaluation result is the quantitative evaluation result for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated.

[0086] In some application scenarios, if only the readability of the in-vehicle font is considered, i.e., only the readability evaluation result of the in-vehicle font is needed, then the readability weight can be 1 and the visual load weight can be 0; or, if only the visual load of the in-vehicle font is considered, i.e. only the visual load evaluation result of the in-vehicle font is needed, then the readability weight can be 0 and the visual load weight can be 1. In other scenarios, the readability weight and visual load weight can also be other values, and the embodiments of this application do not limit the readability weight and visual load weight.

[0087] In this embodiment, by normalizing the eye-tracking data indicators, the influence of individual differences, device differences, scene differences, and dimensional differences on the evaluation results can be eliminated. This makes the eye-tracking data indicators of different test samples (i.e., different types of in-vehicle fonts) and different scenes comparable, thereby more accurately assessing the impact of fonts on visual behavior and improving the accuracy of in-vehicle font evaluation. Furthermore, by combining the weights of different eye-tracking data indicators, as well as readability weights and / or visual load weights, a final comprehensive evaluation result is obtained, enabling an objective and quantitative evaluation of in-vehicle fonts.

[0088] In some possible implementations, the method for evaluating in-vehicle fonts includes determining the readability evaluation result, including: The first intermediate value is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the first fixation time by the first weight; The second intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the average fixation duration by the second weight; The third intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the number of fixations by the third weight; The fourth intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the scan path entropy by the fourth weight; The first, second, third, and fourth intermediate values ​​are summed to obtain the readability evaluation score, which is used as the readability evaluation result.

[0089] In this embodiment, according to the importance of different readability indicators to the readability evaluation results, the weights of the readability indicators are ordered in descending order as follows: first weight, second weight, third weight, and fourth weight. Among them, the first weight, corresponding to the first fixation time, is the largest; the second weight, corresponding to the average fixation duration, is the second largest; the third weight, corresponding to the number of fixations, is the third largest; and the fourth weight, corresponding to the saccade path entropy, is the smallest.

[0090] In some application scenarios, the fourth weight can be 0, meaning that the impact of scan path entropy on the readability evaluation result is negligible, and scan path entropy can be excluded from the calculation.

[0091] In some application scenarios, when ranking readability metrics, the values ​​of two adjacent weights can be equal in the first, second, third, and fourth weights.

[0092] For example, the readability score for a single in-vehicle font can be constructed using the following formula: RS = w_{r1}×S_{TTFF} + w_{r2}×S_{F_{mean}} + w_{r3}×S_{F_{count}}+ w_{r4}×S_{entropy}; Where RS represents the readability score, S_{TTFF} represents the normalized result of the first fixation time, w_{r1} represents the first weight, and w_{r1}×S_{TTFF} represents the first intermediate value; S_{F_{mean}} represents the normalized result of the average fixation duration, w_{r2} represents the second weight, and w_{r2}×S_{F_{mean}} represents the second intermediate value; S_{F_{count}} represents the normalized result of the number of fixations, w_{r3} represents the third weight, and w_{r3}×S_{F_{count}} represents the third intermediate value; S_{entropy} represents the saccade entropy; and w_{r4} represents the fourth weight.

[0093] Where w_{r1}+w_{r2}+w_{r3}+w_{r4}=1.

[0094] This method enables quantitative calculation of readability evaluation results, allowing for an objective quantitative evaluation of the readability of in-vehicle fonts.

[0095] In this embodiment of the application, based on the normalized result of the readability index and combined with the weight of the corresponding eye-tracking data index, the readability evaluation result of a single font to be evaluated can be objectively and quantitatively determined.

[0096] In some possible implementations, the method for evaluating in-vehicle fonts includes determining the visual load evaluation result, including: The fifth intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the blink rate by the fifth weight; The sixth intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the task completion time by the sixth weight; The seventh intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the error rate by the seventh weight; The eighth intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of pupil changes by the eighth weight; The fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth intermediate values ​​are summed to obtain the visual load score, which is used as the visual load evaluation result.

[0097] In this embodiment, according to the importance of different visual workload indicators to the visual workload evaluation results, the weights of the visual workload indicators are ordered from largest to smallest as follows: fifth weight, sixth weight, seventh weight, and eighth weight. Among them, the fifth weight, corresponding to blink rate, is the largest; the sixth weight, corresponding to task completion time, is the second largest; the seventh weight, corresponding to error rate, is the third largest; and the eighth weight, corresponding to pupil change, is the smallest.

[0098] In some application scenarios, the eighth weight can be 0, meaning that the impact of pupil changes on the visual load assessment results can be ignored, and pupil changes can be excluded from the calculation.

[0099] In some application scenarios, when ranking visual load indicators, the values ​​of two adjacent weights in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth weights can be equal.

[0100] For example, the visual load evaluation score for a single in-vehicle font can be constructed using the following formula: VLS = w_{v1}×S_{BlinkRate} + w_{v2}×S_{T_{task}} + w_{v3}×S_{Err}+ w_{v4}×S_{Pupil_{Δ}}; Wherein, VLS represents the visual load assessment score, S_{BlinkRate} represents the normalized result of blink rate, w_{v1} represents the fifth weight, w_{v1}×S_{BlinkRate} represents the fifth intermediate value, S_{T_{task}} represents the normalized result of task completion time, w_{v2} represents the sixth weight, w_{v2}×S_{T_{task}} represents the sixth intermediate value, S_{Err} represents the normalized result of error rate, w_{v3} represents the seventh weight, w_{v3}×S_{Err} represents the seventh intermediate value, S_{Pupil_{Δ}} represents the normalized result of pupil change, w_{v4} represents the eighth weight, w_{v4}×S_{Pupil_{Δ}} represents the eighth intermediate value.

[0101] Among them, w_{v1}+w_{v2}+w_{v3}+w_{v4}=1.

[0102] This method enables the quantitative calculation of visual load evaluation results, allowing for an objective quantitative evaluation of the visual load of in-vehicle fonts.

[0103] In this embodiment of the application, based on the normalized result of the visual load index and combined with the weight of the corresponding eye-tracking data index, the visual load evaluation result of a single font to be evaluated can be objectively and quantitatively determined.

[0104] In some possible implementations, the method for evaluating in-vehicle fonts includes determining a comprehensive evaluation result, including: The ninth intermediate value is obtained by multiplying the readability evaluation result by the ninth weight; The tenth intermediate value is obtained by multiplying the visual load assessment result by the tenth weight; The ninth and tenth intermediate values ​​are summed to obtain the comprehensive evaluation score, which is used as the comprehensive evaluation result.

[0105] In this embodiment of the application, for in-vehicle fonts, readability is more important than visual load, so the ninth weight corresponding to readability is greater than the tenth weight corresponding to visual load.

[0106] In some application scenarios, the tenth weight can be 0, meaning that the impact of the visual load evaluation result on the most comprehensive evaluation result can be ignored, and the visual load evaluation score can be excluded from the calculation.

[0107] For example, the overall evaluation score for a single font can be constructed using the following formula: FRSS=100×(α×RS+(1-α)×VLS); Here, FRSS represents the overall evaluation score, α represents the ninth weight, and (1-α) represents the tenth weight. For example, α=0.6, indicating that readability is slightly more important than visual load.

[0108] Furthermore, regarding the overall evaluation score, it can be interpreted as follows: if FRSS ≥ 80, it indicates that the font is excellent and is most recommended for in-vehicle use; if 80 > FRSS ≥ 60, it indicates that the font is good and is second most recommended for in-vehicle use; if 60 > FRSS ≥ 40, it indicates that the font is acceptable for in-vehicle use; if FRSS < 40, it is not recommended for use.

[0109] In this embodiment of the application, based on the readability evaluation results and / or visual load evaluation results, and combined with the corresponding readability weights and / or visual load weights, a comprehensive evaluation result is quantitatively and objectively determined. This comprehensive evaluation result serves as an evaluation result for in-vehicle fonts, enabling an objective and quantitative evaluation of the readability and / or visual load of in-vehicle fonts.

[0110] For example, when developing a new generation of in-vehicle infotainment interfaces, the in-vehicle font evaluation method provided in the above-described implementation was used to test the operational performance of 20 drivers on three sets of fonts (e.g., font A, font B, and font C, where font is the independent variable). The evaluation results showed that font A had the best overall evaluation score (FRSS) of 82 points; font B had a FRSS of 67 points; and font C had a FRSS of 41 points. Font C was eliminated due to poor gaze concentration and large pupil changes, and is not recommended for in-vehicle use.

[0111] Based on the above evaluation results, the vehicle was ultimately configured with font A, and the character spacing and line spacing can be further optimized based on eye-tracking data indicators to further improve interface readability and driving safety.

[0112] In some possible implementations, before acquiring eye-tracking data metrics for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated, the in-vehicle font evaluation method may also include the following steps: Receives user input for vehicle fonts to be evaluated.

[0113] In this embodiment of the application, the vehicle font to be evaluated input by the user can be a new vehicle font to be evaluated that the user wants to replace the original vehicle font when updating the vehicle font. Correspondingly, the vehicle can receive the vehicle font to be evaluated input by the user and perform the steps of evaluating the vehicle font as listed above.

[0114] Based on the above, after determining the evaluation results for in-vehicle fonts, the in-vehicle font evaluation method further includes the following steps: Based on the evaluation results, font recommendations are generated.

[0115] In this embodiment of the application, the font recommendation result is used to recommend target in-vehicle fonts to users, and the evaluation result of the target in-vehicle font is above the preset result level.

[0116] In this embodiment, the preset result level is used to characterize whether the font is suitable for the vehicle scenario. If the evaluation result is above the preset result level, it indicates that the font is suitable for the vehicle scenario. If the evaluation result is below the preset result level, it indicates that the font is not suitable for the vehicle scenario. If the evaluation results of multiple different types of fonts are all above the preset result level, the user can be informed to select the font they need, or the most suitable font for the vehicle scenario can be recommended to the user, such as the font with the highest evaluation score.

[0117] In this embodiment of the application, when a user needs to update the in-vehicle font, the steps of the above-mentioned in-vehicle font evaluation method are executed, and a target in-vehicle font is recommended to the user. The in-vehicle font can be recommended to the user based on objective and quantitative evaluation results, and the recommendation accuracy is good.

[0118] The in-vehicle font evaluation method provided by the above embodiments utilizes eye-tracking data indicators for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated, achieving a quantitative and objective comprehensive evaluation of the readability and / or visual load of the font. This allows for rapid comparison of the merits of multiple font schemes across different types in the human-vehicle interface. For example, by collecting eye-tracking data indicators from drivers or other testers in dynamic driving scenarios and static reading task scenarios, and using normalization processing and weighted fusion methods, based on multiple eye-tracking data such as average fixation duration, first fixation time, saccade path entropy, pupillary changes, and blink rate, the method comprehensively evaluates font readability and visual load (i.e., safety). This objectively quantifies the impact of different fonts on driver visual load and operational safety; thus, it provides a quantifiable and engineering-implementable unified evaluation system, facilitating objective judgment of the readability of risk warnings.

[0119] Based on the above embodiments, this application also provides an in-vehicle information system that configures a target font; wherein, the target font is a font whose evaluation result is above a preset result level in the evaluation results obtained by any of the in-vehicle font evaluation methods provided by the above embodiments, thereby enabling objective and accurate configuration of in-vehicle fonts.

[0120] For example, an in-vehicle information system may include an in-vehicle central control screen (see reference). Figure 2 In the context of vehicle information system interface font design or user-updated font updates, any vehicle font evaluation method based on the aforementioned methods can objectively and quantitatively evaluate the readability, visual load, and safety of different fonts. Through objective and unified evaluation standards, the configuration of vehicle fonts can be made more reasonable.

[0121] Based on the above embodiments, this application also provides a vehicle, which includes any of the in-vehicle information systems provided in the above embodiments, with reference to... Figure 3 Alternatively, the vehicle may be equipped with an in-vehicle font evaluation model, which is configured to perform the steps of any of the in-vehicle font evaluation methods provided in the above embodiments.

[0122] The in-vehicle font evaluation model can be understood as a quantitative scoring model based on the fusion of multiple eye-tracking data indicators and applicable to the objective evaluation of in-vehicle fonts. The in-vehicle font evaluation model is a comprehensive quantitative scoring model based on eye-tracking data indicators and used for font readability and safety (i.e. visual load). The in-vehicle font evaluation model can be generalized to different vehicle models, different screen sizes and different interface themes, and has strong engineering applicability.

[0123] Based on the same inventive concept, this application also provides an in-vehicle font evaluation device, which can be used to perform the steps of any of the in-vehicle font evaluation methods provided in the above embodiments, and has corresponding beneficial effects.

[0124] For example, Figure 4 A schematic diagram of the structure of an in-vehicle font evaluation device provided in an embodiment of this application is shown. (Reference) Figure 4 The vehicle-mounted font evaluation device may include: an index acquisition module 41, used to acquire eye-tracking data indices for the vehicle-mounted font to be evaluated; and a result determination module 42, used to determine the evaluation result for the vehicle-mounted font based on the eye-tracking data indices, wherein the evaluation result is used to characterize the font readability and / or visual load.

[0125] In the embodiments of this application, the in-vehicle font evaluation device can obtain the evaluation result of the in-vehicle font to be evaluated based on the eye-tracking data indicators obtained for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated, thereby realizing the evaluation of font readability and / or visual load. This avoids the problem of difficulty in providing a unified standard caused by the large difference in the subjective feelings brought about by subjective questionnaires and user interviews. Instead, it provides an objective method for evaluating in-vehicle fonts, forming a unified standard for in-vehicle font evaluation, which is conducive to engineering standardization.

[0126] In some possible implementations, the indicator acquisition module 41 is specifically used to: acquire at least one readability indicator and / or at least one visual load indicator for vehicle-mounted fonts in dynamic or static scenarios; wherein, dynamic scenarios include scenarios where the vehicle is in motion, and static scenarios include scenarios where the vehicle is stationary; the readability indicator is used to characterize the readability of the font, and the visual load indicator is used to characterize the visual load of the font.

[0127] In some possible implementations, the indicator acquisition module 41 is specifically used to: acquire at least one of the first fixation time, average fixation duration, number of fixations, and saccade entropy for the vehicle font to be evaluated; and / or, acquire at least one of the blink rate, task completion time, error rate, and pupil change for the vehicle font to be evaluated.

[0128] In some possible implementations, the result determination module 42 is specifically used to: normalize each eye-tracking data indicator to obtain a normalized result; based on the normalized result, and combined with the weight of the corresponding eye-tracking data indicator, determine the readability evaluation result and / or visual load evaluation result of a single font to be evaluated; based on the readability evaluation result and / or visual load evaluation result, and combined with the corresponding readability weight and / or visual load weight, determine the comprehensive evaluation result; and use the comprehensive evaluation result as the evaluation result for in-vehicle fonts.

[0129] In some possible implementations, the result determination module 42 is specifically used to: multiply the normalized result of the first fixation time by a first weight to obtain a first intermediate quantity; multiply the normalized result of the average fixation duration by a second weight to obtain a second intermediate quantity; multiply the normalized result of the number of fixations by a third weight to obtain a third intermediate quantity; multiply the normalized result of the saccade entropy by a fourth weight to obtain a fourth intermediate quantity; sum the first intermediate quantity, the second intermediate quantity, the third intermediate quantity, and the fourth intermediate quantity to obtain a readability evaluation score, which is used as the readability evaluation result; wherein the weights are ordered from largest to smallest as: first weight, second weight, third weight, and fourth weight.

[0130] In some possible implementations, the result determination module 42 is specifically used to: multiply the normalized result of blink rate by a fifth weight to obtain a fifth intermediate quantity; multiply the normalized result of task completion time by a sixth weight to obtain a sixth intermediate quantity; multiply the normalized result of error rate by a seventh weight to obtain a seventh intermediate quantity; multiply the normalized result of pupil change by an eighth weight to obtain an eighth intermediate quantity; sum the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth intermediate quantities to obtain a visual load score, which is used as the visual load evaluation result; wherein the weights are ordered from largest to smallest as: fifth weight, sixth weight, seventh weight, and eighth weight.

[0131] In some possible implementations, the result determination module 42 is specifically used to: multiply the readability evaluation result by the ninth weight to obtain the ninth intermediate value; multiply the visual load evaluation result by the tenth weight to obtain the tenth intermediate value; sum the ninth intermediate value and the tenth intermediate value to obtain the comprehensive evaluation score, and use the comprehensive evaluation score as the comprehensive evaluation result; wherein the ninth weight is greater than the tenth weight.

[0132] In some possible implementations, the in-vehicle font evaluation device may further include: a font receiving module for receiving, before acquiring eye-tracking data metrics for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated, the in-vehicle font input by the user.

[0133] In some possible implementations, the vehicle font evaluation device may further include: a recommendation result generation module, used to generate a font recommendation result based on the evaluation result after determining the evaluation result for the vehicle font; the font recommendation result is used to recommend a target vehicle font to the user, wherein the evaluation result of the target vehicle font is above a preset result level.

[0134] It is understood that the vehicle font evaluation device provided in this application embodiment can perform the steps of any of the vehicle font evaluation methods provided in the above embodiments to achieve the corresponding technical effects. For details, please refer to the above text for understanding, and it will not be repeated here.

[0135] This application provides an electronic device, which includes a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and running on the processor. When the processor executes the computer program, it implements the steps in any of the vehicle font evaluation methods provided in the above embodiments.

[0136] For example, Figure 5 A schematic diagram of the structure of an electronic device according to an embodiment of this application is shown. (Reference) Figure 5The electronic device may include: a processor 31, a memory 32, an input / output interface 33, a communication interface 34, and a bus 35. The processor 31, memory 32, input / output interface 33, and communication interface 34 are interconnected within the electronic device via the bus 35. The processor 31 can be implemented using a general-purpose CPU (Central Processing Unit), microprocessor, application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or one or more integrated circuits, and is used to execute relevant programs to implement the technical solutions provided in the embodiments of this specification. The memory 32 can be implemented in the form of ROM (Read Only Memory), RAM (Random Access Memory), static storage device, dynamic storage device, etc. The memory 32 can store the operating system and other application programs. When the technical solutions provided in the embodiments of this specification are implemented by software or firmware, the relevant program code is stored in the memory 32 and is called and executed by the processor 31. Input / output interface 33 is used to connect input / output modules / components to realize information input and output. Input / output modules / components can be configured as components in electronic devices (not shown in the figure) or externally connected to electronic devices to provide corresponding functions. Input modules / components may include keyboards, mice, touch screens, microphones, various sensors, etc., while output modules / components may include displays (touch screens), speakers, vibrators, indicator lights, etc.

[0137] Communication interface 34 is used to connect a communication module (not shown in the figure) to enable communication and interaction between this electronic device and other devices / systems. The communication module can communicate via wired means (e.g., USB, Ethernet cable, etc.) or wireless means (e.g., mobile network, WIFI, Bluetooth, etc.). Bus 35 includes a pathway for transmitting information between various components of an electronic device, such as processor 31, memory 32, input / output interface 33, and communication interface 34. It should be noted that although the above-described device only shows the processor 31, memory 32, input / output interface 33, communication interface 34, and bus 35, in specific implementations, the electronic device may also include other components necessary for normal operation. Furthermore, those skilled in the art will understand that the above-described electronic device may only include the components necessary for implementing the embodiments of this specification, and not necessarily all the components shown in the figures.

[0138] The electronic devices provided in the above embodiments are used to implement the steps of the corresponding vehicle font evaluation method in any embodiment of this application, and have the beneficial effects of the corresponding method embodiments, which will not be repeated here.

[0139] In some possible implementations, the electronic device may include a body controller and a vehicle-mounted system. In the embodiments of this application, both the body controller and the vehicle-mounted system are equipped with the processor described above. The body controller and the vehicle-mounted system call computer programs stored in their respective processors to implement the steps of the in-vehicle font evaluation method provided in any of the above embodiments.

[0140] This embodiment also provides a computer-readable storage medium storing computer program code. When the computer program code is run on a computer, the computer executes the above-mentioned method steps to implement the steps of the vehicle font evaluation method provided in the above embodiment, and has the beneficial effects of the corresponding method embodiment, which will not be elaborated here.

[0141] Computer-readable storage media may take the form of any combination of one or more readable media. A readable medium may be a readable signal medium or a readable storage medium. A readable storage medium may, for example, include, but is not limited to, electrical, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor systems, apparatuses, or devices, or any combination thereof. More specific examples of readable storage media (a non-exhaustive list) include: electrical connections having one or more wires, portable disks, hard disks, random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or flash memory), optical fibers, portable compact disk read-only memory (CD-ROM), optical storage devices, magnetic storage devices, or any suitable combination thereof.

[0142] This embodiment also provides a computer program product that, when run on a computer, causes the computer to perform the aforementioned related steps to implement the steps of any of the vehicle font evaluation methods provided in the above embodiments.

[0143] Computer program products can be written in any combination of one or more programming languages ​​to perform the operations of the embodiments of the present invention. The programming languages ​​include object-oriented programming languages ​​such as Java and C++, as well as conventional procedural programming languages ​​such as C or similar languages. The program code can be executed entirely on the user's computing device, partially on the user's computing device, as a standalone software package, partially on the user's computing device and partially on a remote computing device, or entirely on a remote computing device or server.

[0144] The beneficial effects of the above embodiments can be referred to the beneficial effects of the corresponding methods provided above, and will not be repeated here.

[0145] Through the above description of the embodiments, those skilled in the art will understand that, for the sake of convenience and brevity, only the division of the above functional modules is used as an example. In actual applications, the above functions can be assigned to different functional modules as needed, that is, the internal structure of the device can be divided into different functional modules to complete all or part of the functions described above.

[0146] In the embodiments provided in this application, it should be understood that the disclosed apparatus and methods can be implemented in other ways. For example, the apparatus embodiments described above are merely illustrative; for instance, the division of modules or units is only a logical functional division, and in actual implementation, there may be other division methods. For example, multiple units or components may be coupled or communicated, which can be electrical, mechanical, or other forms. They can be combined or integrated into another device, or some features may be ignored or not performed. Furthermore, the mutual coupling or direct coupling or communication connection shown or discussed may be through some interfaces, or the indirect coupling or communication connection of devices or units may be electrical, mechanical, or other forms.

[0147] In the description of this disclosure, it should be understood that if the terms "upper", "lower", "front", "rear", "left" and "right" are used to indicate the orientation or positional relationship based on the orientation or positional relationship shown in the drawings, they are only for the convenience of describing the present invention and simplifying the description, and do not indicate or imply that the position or element referred to must have a specific orientation, or be constructed and operated in a specific orientation, and therefore should not be construed as a limitation of this disclosure. It should be noted that, in this document, relational terms such as "first" and "second" are used only to distinguish one entity or operation from another, and do not necessarily require or imply any such actual relationship or order between these entities or operations. It should also be noted that the terms "comprising," "including," or any other variations thereof are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, article, or apparatus that comprises a list of elements includes not only those elements but also other elements not expressly listed, or elements inherent to such process, method, article, or apparatus. Unless otherwise specified, an element defined by the phrase "comprising one..." does not exclude the presence of other identical elements in the process, method, article, or apparatus that includes the element. The above are merely embodiments of this disclosure and are not intended to limit the scope of this disclosure. Various modifications and variations can be made to this disclosure by those skilled in the art. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, improvements, etc., made within the spirit and principles of this disclosure should be included within the scope of the claims of this disclosure.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating in-vehicle fonts, characterized in that, include: Obtain eye-tracking data metrics for the in-vehicle fonts to be evaluated; Based on the eye-tracking data metrics, an evaluation result is determined for the in-vehicle font, and the evaluation result is used to characterize the font readability and / or visual load.

2. The vehicle-mounted font evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The acquisition of eye-tracking data metrics for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated includes: In dynamic or static scenarios, obtain at least one readability index and / or at least one visual load index for the vehicle-mounted font; The dynamic scene includes a scene where the vehicle is in motion, and the static scene includes a scene where the vehicle is stationary; the readability index is used to characterize the readability of the font, and the visual load index is used to characterize the visual load of the font.

3. The vehicle-mounted font evaluation method according to claim 2, characterized in that, The acquisition of at least one readability metric and / or at least one visual load metric for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated includes: Obtain at least one of the following for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated: first gaze time, average gaze duration, number of gazes, and saccade path entropy; And / or, obtain at least one of the following for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated: blink rate, task completion time, error rate, and pupil change.

4. The vehicle-mounted font evaluation method according to claim 3, characterized in that, The process of determining the evaluation result for the in-vehicle font based on the eye-tracking data indicators includes: Each of the eye-tracking data indicators is normalized to obtain the normalized result; Based on the normalization results, and combined with the weights of the corresponding eye-tracking data indicators, the readability evaluation results and / or visual load evaluation results of a single font to be evaluated are determined. Based on the readability evaluation results and / or the visual load evaluation results, and in combination with the corresponding readability weights and / or visual load weights, a comprehensive evaluation result is determined; the comprehensive evaluation result serves as the evaluation result for the in-vehicle font.

5. The vehicle-mounted font evaluation method according to claim 4, characterized in that, Determining the readability evaluation result includes: The first intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the first fixation time by the first weight; The normalized result of the average fixation duration is multiplied by the second weight to obtain the second intermediate quantity; The third intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the number of fixations by the third weight; The fourth intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the scan path entropy by the fourth weight; The first intermediate value, the second intermediate value, the third intermediate value, and the fourth intermediate value are summed to obtain the readability evaluation score, and the readability evaluation score is used as the readability evaluation result. The weights, ordered from largest to smallest, are: first weight, second weight, third weight, and fourth weight.

6. The vehicle-mounted font evaluation method according to claim 4, characterized in that, Determining the visual load assessment result includes: The fifth intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the blink rate by the fifth weight; The sixth intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the task completion time by the sixth weight; The seventh intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the error rate by the seventh weight; The eighth intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the normalized result of the pupil change by the eighth weight; The visual load score is obtained by summing the fifth intermediate value, the sixth intermediate value, the seventh intermediate value, and the eighth intermediate value, and the visual load score is used as the visual load evaluation result. The weights, ordered from largest to smallest, are: fifth weight, sixth weight, seventh weight, and eighth weight.

7. The vehicle-mounted font evaluation method according to claim 4, characterized in that, Determining the comprehensive evaluation result includes: The ninth intermediate value is obtained by multiplying the readability evaluation result by the ninth weight; The tenth intermediate quantity is obtained by multiplying the visual load assessment result by the tenth weight. The ninth intermediate quantity and the tenth intermediate quantity are summed to obtain the comprehensive evaluation score, which is used as the comprehensive evaluation result. The ninth weight is greater than the tenth weight.

8. The method for evaluating vehicle-mounted fonts according to any one of claims 1-7, characterized in that, Before acquiring eye-tracking data metrics for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated, the in-vehicle font evaluation method further includes: Receive user input for the in-vehicle font to be evaluated; After determining the evaluation result for the in-vehicle font, the in-vehicle font evaluation method further includes: Based on the evaluation results, font recommendation results are generated; the font recommendation results are used to recommend target in-vehicle fonts to users, and the evaluation results of the target in-vehicle fonts are above the preset result level.

9. A vehicle-mounted information system, characterized in that, The vehicle information system is configured with a target font; The target font is a font whose evaluation result is above a preset result level, obtained from the evaluation result obtained by the vehicle font evaluation method according to any one of claims 1-8.

10. A vehicle, characterized in that, The vehicle includes the in-vehicle information system as described in claim 9; Alternatively, the vehicle is equipped with an in-vehicle font evaluation model, which is configured to perform the steps of the in-vehicle font evaluation method according to any one of claims 1-8.

Images