Evaluating UX and Usability in Automotive Human–Machine Interfaces: A Systematic Review

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Human–Machine Interfaces (HMIs) are increasingly important in vehicles and other safety-critical systems, yet approaches to their usability and User eXperience (UX) evaluation remain fragmented. This systematic literature review investigates how HMIs are empirically evaluated across domains, with a primary focus on automotive HMIs, complemented by evidence from related safety-critical domains. The review examines UX and usability evaluation methodologies, tools, standards, and technological trends reported in recent research. Peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2015 and 2025 were considered if they addressed empirical usability or UX evaluation of HMIs. Searches were conducted in Scopus and ScienceDirect databases following PRISMA guidelines. From n = 659 records initially identified, n = 82 papers were included in the final analysis. The literature was synthesized using a descriptive and narrative approach, focusing on evaluation contexts, testing methodologies, sensor-based tools, applied standards, and assessment metrics. Most papers investigated automotive HMIs, while fewer addressed aerospace, industrial, maritime, and other safety-critical applications. Simulation-based user testing emerged as the dominant evaluation approach, frequently supported by eye-tracking and physiological sensing technologies and subjective evaluation questionnaires. A more detailed analysis revealed that adherence to international standards (e.g., ISO 9241 and ISO 26262) was not always consistently evident. Overall, the evidence highlights substantial methodological heterogeneity, fragmented adoption of standards, and limited cross-domain comparability. While today UX and usability evaluation can benefit from continuous technological advances, the field lacks standardized and replicable assessment protocols. Future research should prioritize stronger integration of standards, multimodal evaluation approaches, and longitudinal study designs.

This publication has 50 references indexed in Scilit: