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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Applied Sciences
Published
2026-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/app16073437
Primary Topic
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Margherita Peruzzini, Marco Cescon
Applied Sciences
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
article

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

Margherita Peruzzini, Marco Cescon
article en

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.

Applied SciencesVol. 16(7)
University of Bologna (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 31%
Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.