Vehicle Gesture Control Verification to Prevent False Triggering

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing gesture-controlled vehicle systems face safety risks due to incorrect gesture recognition and data transmission, leading to potential dangers such as unintended vehicle movements, and require complex and costly ASIL-level protective measures.

Innovation Solution

A vehicle control method and apparatus that involves storing recommended gestures for vehicle functions, reconstructing actual gestures, and generating control instructions only when the gesture data meets preset conditions, ensuring safe execution by executive mechanisms without additional protective measures.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If protective measures are increased for the HMI device and data transmission path to ensure gesture recognition accuracy, then vehicle safety is improved, but system complexity and development cost increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvegesture recognition accuracyVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The terminal control device performs self-verification of gesture data by comparing received gesture data with expected gesture data. The system uses its own stored gesture templates to validate incoming data, eliminating the need for external protective measures or additional verification devices. This self-service approach ensures gesture recognition accuracy while maintaining system simplicity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements a feedback mechanism where the terminal control device sends expected gesture data back to verify the received gesture data. This feedback loop allows the system to detect and correct transmission errors or recognition failures, improving reliability without adding complex protective hardware. The verification process provides continuous feedback on data integrity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Reliability

If additional protective measures are added to meet ASIL level requirements, then safety integrity is improved, but development cost increases significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesafety integrityVSAvoiddevelopment cost
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The terminal control device uses its own stored expected gesture data to verify received gesture data, performing safety verification internally without requiring additional protective hardware or systems. This self-verification mechanism achieves ASIL-level safety integrity while avoiding the high development costs associated with implementing complex protective measures or multiple redundant systems.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system creates a copy of the expected gesture data stored in the terminal control device and uses this copy for verification purposes. By comparing the received gesture data with the stored expected gesture data, the system achieves high safety integrity through a simple data copying and comparison mechanism, avoiding expensive protective hardware.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

3Speed

If gesture data is directly transmitted from HMI device to target device, then response speed is improved, but risk of false triggering increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveresponse speedVSAvoidfalse triggering risk
Core Design Contradiction:
SpeedVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The terminal control device intercepts and verifies gesture data transmission by comparing received data with expected gesture data before forwarding to the target device. This feedback verification step detects transmission errors or incorrect recognition, preventing false triggering while maintaining fast response through efficient data comparison. The verification process adds minimal delay while significantly reducing false triggering risk.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The terminal control device acts as an intermediary between the HMI device and the target device, verifying gesture data before transmission. This intermediary role allows the system to maintain direct transmission pathways for speed while introducing a verification checkpoint that prevents false triggering. The terminal control device mediates the data flow, ensuring accuracy without significantly slowing response time.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentEP4067192B1Vehicle control method, apparatus and system
Publication Date: 2025.09.03 GREAT WALL MOTOR CO LTD
  • EP4067192B1 patent drawingFigure 1~2
  • EP4067192B1 patent drawingFigure 3~4
  • EP4067192B1 patent drawingFigure 5~7

AI summary

The present disclosure provides a vehicle control method, an apparatus and a system, applied to a terminal control device in a vehicle. The terminal control device is in communication connection to a human-machine interface device, and the vehicle comprises a plurality of executive mechanisms. The method comprises: when a start instruction for a target function is monitored, receiving current gesture data sent by the human-machine interface device; and when the current gesture data meets a preset condition, generating a target control instruction according to the current gesture data, and sending the target control instruction to a target executive mechanism for the target executive mechanism to execute an operation corresponding to the current gesture data. The present disclosure may avoid dangers resulting from false triggering of a vehicle function due to errors in the gesture data when the gesture data is destroyed during the transmission from the human-machine interface device to the terminal control device, thereby ensuring the safety of using gestures to control the vehicle.