A modification of technology acceptance model for investigating driver-vehicle interaction systems usage

Yichen Dong; Makoto Itoh

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0322221

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 17, 2024
17 Sep 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322221.r001
29 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Sohaib Mustafa, Editor PONE-D-24-38763A modification of technology acceptance model for investigating driver-vehicle interaction systems usagePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dong, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Based on the reviewers comments i suggest you to cite the following articles and compare your findings to enhance it scope. https://doi.org/10.1145/3498851.3498992https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-024-10515-3 ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 13 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Sohaib Mustafa, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear Author(s) The paper makes a valuable contribution by investigating respondents' acceptance of driver-vehicle interaction systems through a questionnaire survey and explaining the proposed model constructs, which include perceived usefulness, perceived enjoyment, satisfaction, attitude, interactive media, and user interface. While the article is well-known and has a solid scientific structure, I suggest the following clarifications and additions (Major revisions) before it is considered for publication: Abstract: It is necessary to include the following items in this section: - In the “Abstract” section; no information has been provided regarding the type of study, the number of participants, the tools/questionnaires used, and so on. The research findings should be presented quantitatively in the "Abstract" section. Additionally, a general conclusion from the study should be provided as the "Conclusion". - Please state the significance level (p-value) in which this analysis was performed in the results section. Introduction: - There is no need to introduce the three determinant constructs of TAM (as illustrated in Fig 1) in the “Introduction” section. It is recommended to present it in the "Materials and Methods" section under a subsection titled “Technical acceptance model”. - The authors need to revise and rewrite the text to improve coherence between the paragraphs. Material and methods: - In the “Materials and Methods” section, the authors should present the model constructs′ explanations more concisely and avoid providing irrelevant details. It is recommended to present these constructs in a table along with their definitions and corresponding references. This approach will improve the clarity of the components, enhance readability for the reader, and ultimately make the text more concise. - Figure 1 and its explanation should be presented in this section, not in the "Introduction" section. - Please organize the study hypotheses into a table. - In the “Materials and Methods” section; the authors need to provide information on the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. Additionally, please specify whether the questionnaire was distributed to participants in English or Japanese. If it was translated into Japanese, was its validity verified? - In “Data analysis” subsection; Was the assumption of normality of the data evaluated? If yes, with what test? - In “Data analysis” subsection; Were outliers checked in the study? At what confidence level was the data analysis conducted? Results: Good Discussion: - The authors have listed the study's limitations separately under the subsection “Limitations”. It is essential to include this information as a paragraph at the end of the “Discussion” section. It is necessary to express the strengths and limitations of the present study more clearly. Can the authors state more limitations for the present study? Also, the authors should provide their suggestions for future studies (if any). I believe the stated limitations are unclear and may be difficult for the reader to understand. Conclusions: - Authors are expected to present a complete and adequate conclusion of their study in this section. In the “Conclusion” section, authors should present a general conclusion of the study, not the study findings. - Some of the study's limitations are mentioned in the “Conclusion” section. These limitations should be consolidated and presented together in the final paragraph of the “Discussion” section. Reviewer #2: 1. The topic is very interesting and applicable to present day scenario. 2. However, as originated in Japan, it has considered road features and driving conditions of Japan only where automated driving is very much accepted. It has not considered the fact that how much 'automated driving is acceptable in global scenario' or 'the degree of automation that can be considered safe in global scenario'. This is considered important because for each person, he himself is the safest driver. So in such crucial aspect how much can we depend on a 'machine for decision making' is a million dollar question. Please go through following paper : Michael A. Nees, 2019. Safer than the average human driver (who is less safe than me)? Examining a popular safety benchmark for self-driving cars. Journal of Safety Research, Volume 69, June 2019, Pages 61-68. I would request that, as this paper is a questionnaire based study, the author could discuss "the degree of automation accepted" and "Safety of Driver and Public" before discussing the HMI of Driver-Vehicle Interaction. These two aspects would also influence the user experience and perceived usefulness under Technology Acceptance Model. Authors would appreciate the fact that if the Drivers are completely satisfied about safety aspects of automated driving, then only they will be able to divert their attention (without increasing the cognitive workload) to execute Non-Driving Related Tasks (NDRT), like, playing a game or watching a movie (Refer to the two enclosed files). 3. Sentences should never start with abbreviations (e.g., refer paragraph starting at line no. 68). Kindly correct it throughout the manuscript. 4. The sentences have to be meaningful. Please correct it throughout the manuscript. For example, refer line 88, "Several studies.. introduced TAM ... systems." Instead of the word 'introduced' the word 'used' would be giving the meaning in better way. Logically several studies cannot introduce something. It is understood that for the first time something is introduced and after that it is used. 5. Please use simple and easily understandable English. Please do not use words like 'adhibition' line no. 134. kindly rephrase this sentence and correct others throughout the manuscript. 6. Kindly correct grammar throughout the manuscript. For example, refer line no. 390, remove 'the' in "On the one hand...". The manuscript appears to be written in short-cut language and is devoid of proper sentence construction at a number of instances. 7. Table 5 appears to be too long. 8. Conclusion cannot be two pages long. Kindly condense it in 3-4 bulleted sentences. 9. Enclosed figures are neither legible nor readable. Please attach them in clear picture format. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: Yes: Sajjad Rostamzadeh Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Deepti Majumdar ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Osswald2012.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: 1-s2.0-S0040162520311458-main.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322221.r002
Revision 1
21 Nov 2024 Author Response Dear Editor, Thank you for your questions and comments. We have carefully addressed your concerns as shown in this response letter and revised the manuscript. Please check the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” for tracking our revisions. The major changes made in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in yellow (the deleted contents and revisions made on language problems are not included). We have also uploaded a file called “Revised Manuscript with the Whole Track Changes” which covers all the change histories. Based on the reviewers’ comments I suggest you to cite the following articles and compare your findings to enhance its scope. Reply: Thank you for the references, we have carefully read the references and added the citations in the paper to enhance the scope of our discussion of perceived usefulness and enjoyment. Please check lines 156 to 159, 171 to 173, and 543 to 547. Journal requirements 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Reply: We have checked and modified the manuscript and file names to meet PLOS ONE's style requirements following the links. 2. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. Reply: We have uploaded the data on the “Dryad”, DOI: 10.5061/dryad.4qrfj6qm5. Please let us know if you have any questions or further feedback. I hope our revisions can satisfy your comments and questions. Sincerely yours, Dong and Itoh Dear Reviewer #1, Thank you for your questions and comments. We have carefully addressed your concerns as shown in this response letter and revised the manuscript. Please check the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” for tracking our revisions. The major changes made in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in yellow (the deleted contents and revisions made on language problems are not included). We have also uploaded a file called “Revised Manuscript with the Whole Track Changes” which covers all the change histories. Abstract: It is necessary to include the following items in this section: - In the “Abstract” section; no information has been provided regarding the type of study, the number of participants, the tools/questionnaires used, and so on. The research findings should be presented quantitatively in the "Abstract" section. Additionally, a general conclusion from the study should be provided as the "Conclusion". Reply: We have added the type of study, the details of the participants, and the information about the questionnaire used in the “Abstract” from lines 30 to 37. The general conclusion of the study has been added from lines 48 to 51. - Please state the significance level (p-value) in which this analysis was performed in the results section. Reply: We have stated the significant level at lines 40, 44, and 46. Introduction: - There is no need to introduce the three determinant constructs of TAM (as illustrated in Fig 1) in the “Introduction” section. It is recommended to present it in the "Materials and Methods" section under a subsection titled “Technical acceptance model”. Reply: We have moved the introduction of TAM from the “Introduction” section to the “Materials and methods” section where a subsection called “TAM” was created at line 91. - The authors need to revise and rewrite the text to improve coherence between the paragraphs. Reply: We have deleted some parts of “Introduction” and added a paragraph from lines 84 to 87 to improve the coherence between the sections “Introduction” and “Materials and methods”. Material and methods: - In the “Materials and Methods” section, the authors should present the model constructs′ explanations more concisely and avoid providing irrelevant details. It is recommended to present these constructs in a table along with their definitions and corresponding references. This approach will improve the clarity of the components, enhance readability for the reader, and ultimately make the text more concise. Reply: We have deleted the irrelevant details and modified the sentences to improve the coherence between the paragraphs. The modifications are highlighted in yellow. In addition, a section named “Proposed model” was added to include the subsections of the model constructs and added the general introduction from lines 150 to 153. Regarding the table of the constructs, we have introduced the definitions of the constructs and their references in Table 1 at line 238. - Figure 1 and its explanation should be presented in this section, not in the "Introduction" section. Reply: Figure 1 has been moved to the “TAM” subsection at line 101. - Please organize the study hypotheses into a table. Reply: We have added a new subsection named “Hypotheses” and put the study hypotheses into Table 2 at line 256. - In the “Materials and Methods” section; the authors need to provide information on the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. Additionally, please specify whether the questionnaire was distributed to participants in English or Japanese. If it was translated into Japanese, was its validity verified? Reply: Because this study is a continuation of a previous study [19] on questionnaire design, we had proved the questionnaire’s validity and reliability with exploratory factor analysis in that study. Regarding the language of the questionnaire, we had used Japanese language translated from Chinese language. We had invited a bilingualist who has expertise in these two languages to check the contents of the questionnaire. We have added these explanations from lines 278 to 283 in the subsection “Questionnaire design”. - In “Data analysis” subsection; Was the assumption of normality of the data evaluated? If yes, with what test? Reply: Because the data is based on the questionnaire survey, we had used the absolute value of skewness and kurtosis to check the normality. We have added the values of skewness and kurtosis in Table 3. Please check the sentences from lines 297 to 300 and Table 3 at line 301. In addition, we have changed the subsection title to “Measurement and data analysis” which might be more suitable. - In “Data analysis” subsection; Were outliers checked in the study? At what confidence level was the data analysis conducted? Reply: We have added the strategy of deleting invalid data from lines 294 to 297 and added the confidence level from lines 306 to 307. Discussion: - The authors have listed the study's limitations separately under the subsection “Limitations”. It is essential to include this information as a paragraph at the end of the “Discussion” section. It is necessary to express the strengths and limitations of the present study more clearly. Can the authors state more limitations for the present study? Also, the authors should provide their suggestions for future studies (if any). I believe the stated limitations are unclear and may be difficult for the reader to understand. Reply: We have rewritten the subsection of “Limitations” to make it clearer for reading. We have added and discussed 5 limitations in the “Limitations” subsection: the period of respondent’s consideration, actual system use, perceived safety, regional characteristics, and the correlation between satisfaction and demographics. For each limitation, we have explained our continued works and future plans. Please check the “Limitations” subsection from lines 574 to 604. Conclusions: - Authors are expected to present a complete and adequate conclusion of their study in this section. In the “Conclusion” section, authors should present a general conclusion of the study, not the study findings. Reply: We have rewritten the section “Conclusion” to provide general conclusion. Please check the section “Conclusion” from lines 606 to 621. - Some of the study's limitations are mentioned in the “Conclusion” section. These limitations should be consolidated and presented together in the final paragraph of the “Discussion” section. Rely: We have merged these sentences into the subsection of “Limitations”. Please let us know if you have any questions or further feedback. I hope our revisions can satisfy your comments and questions. Sincerely yours, Dong and Itoh Dear Reviewer #2, Thank you for your questions and comments. We have carefully addressed your concerns as shown in this response letter and revised the manuscript. Please check the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” for tracking our revisions. The major changes made in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in yellow (the deleted contents and revisions made on language problems are not included). We have also uploaded a file called “Revised Manuscript with the Whole Track Changes” which covers all the change histories. 1. The topic is very interesting and applicable to present day scenario. Reply: Thank you for your interest in this paper. 2. I would request that, as this paper is a questionnaire based study, the author could discuss "the degree of automation accepted" and "Safety of Driver and Public" before discussing the HMI of Driver-Vehicle Interaction. These two aspects would also influence the user experience and perceived usefulness under Technology Acceptance Model. Authors would appreciate the fact that if the Drivers are completely satisfied about safety aspects of automated driving, then only they will be able to divert their attention (without increasing the cognitive workload) to execute Non-Driving Related Tasks (NDRT), like, playing a game or watching a movie (Refer to the two enclosed files). Reply: Thank you for the attached papers that inspired our revisions. We agreed with your idea that the paper should discuss safety as well as the degree of automation accepted. Because we are researching the safety, usability, and user acceptance of our designed driver-vehicle interface prototype in the continued work of this paper currently. Thus, we have added the discussion of safety in the section of “Introduction” from lines 54 to 66 and discussed the limitation of safety in the subsection of “Limitations” from lines 587 to 592. Please check these paragraphs. 3. Sentences should never start with abbreviations (e.g., refer paragraph starting at line no. 68). Kindly correct it throughout the manuscript. Reply: We have corrected the problem. We have also checked the manuscript to correct similar problems. 4. The sentences have to be meaningful. Please correct it throughout the manuscript. For example, refer line 88, "Several studies.. introduced TAM ... systems." Instead of the word 'introduced' the word 'used' would be giving the meaning in better way. Logically several studies cannot introduce something. It is understood that for the first time something is introduced and after that it is used. Reply: The word was changed to “used”, please check line 105. We have also checked the manuscript to correct similar problems. 5. Please use simple and easily understandable English. Please do not use words like 'adhibition' line no. 134. kindly rephrase this sentence and correct others throughout the manuscript. Reply: The word was changed to “development”, please check line 146. We have also checked the manuscript for similar problems. 6. Kindly correct grammar throughout the manuscript. For example, refer line no. 390, remove 'the' in "On the one hand...". The manuscript appears to be written in short-cut language and is devoid of proper sentence construction at a number of instances. Reply: We have deleted these words, please check line 337. We have also done the proofread to avoid similar problems. 7. Table 5 appears to be too long. Reply: To shorten the tables, we have used abbreviations and reduced the size of the words. Please check the table at line 391. 8. Conclusion cannot be two pages long. Kindly condense it in 3-4 bulleted sentences. Reply: We have rewritten the conclusion by condensing it. Please check the conclusion from lines 606 to 621. 9. Enclosed figures are neither legible nor readable. Please attach them in clear picture format. Reply: We have adjusted and reuploaded the figures, please check them. Please let us know if you have any questions or further feedback. I hope our revisions can satisfy your comments and questions. Sincerely yours, Dong and Itoh Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322221.r003
4 Mar 2025 Decision Letter - Sohaib Mustafa, Editor PONE-D-24-38763R1A modification of technology acceptance model for investigating driver-vehicle interaction systems usagePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dong, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 18 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Sohaib Mustafa, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: 1.Abstracts : Kindly provide quantified and analyzed data that proves this observation (both in Abstract and main text) "Male drivers had higher perceived usefulness and more positive attitudes than female drivers". 2. Introduction : Improved and acceptable. 3. Materials & Methods : i) Lines 145 - 147 : This sentence is not meaningful and seems to be incomplete. Kindly re-frame it. : "Prior studies on extending TAM support its modifications. The constructs' explanations and their correlations with other constructs are presented in the following hypotheses" ii) Hypothesis is not clearly written. Kindly write the hypothesis in to-the-point and crisp manner. iii) Research model and theories should not be discussed in Materials & Method Section. Please transfer chunk of the material to Discussion section. It is not clear that which methodology has been used to develop model and how the model is supposed to behave. Why a subheading of Methodology is being introduced under Materials and Methods section 4. Results : All Tables still need formatting. 5. Discussion Section : Please remove the repetition of text between Material & Methods and Discussion sections. 6. Please give precise implications of study as per the results obtained after questionnaire data analysis. It seems a bit jumbled up. 7. Length of the Limitation and Conclusion section are a bit lengthy, it is suggested bulleted points may please be given. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: Yes: Sajjad Rostamzadeh Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Deepti Majumdar ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322221.r004
Revision 2
10 Mar 2025 Author Response Dear Editor, Thank you for your consideration. We have carefully addressed the reviewers’ comments as shown in this response letter and revised the manuscript. Please check the “March Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” for tracking our revisions. The major changes made in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in yellow (the deleted contents and revisions made on language problems are not included). We have also uploaded a file called “March Revised Manuscript with the Whole Track Changes” which covers all the change histories. Journal Requirements: We have checked the reference list, and it is complete and correct. Meanwhile, all the references are not retracted. Please let us know if you have any questions or further feedback. Sincerely yours, Dong and Itoh Dear Reviewer #2, Thank you for your questions and comments. First, sorry for not mentioning there are two manuscripts in the previous submission pdf: page 13/192 to 63/192 was the original manuscript without revision, and page 64/192 to 113/192 was the revised manuscript with the first-round revision. Sorry again for causing you any confusion in the review. Please check the download link on the top right-hand side of the manuscript's first page: March revision.docx for the newest version of this manuscript. We have carefully addressed your concerns as shown in this response letter and revised the manuscript. Please check the “March Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” for tracking. The major changes made in the revised manuscript are highlighted in yellow (the deleted contents and revisions made on language problems are not included). We also uploaded a file called “March Revised Manuscript with the Whole Track Changes” which covers all the change histories. Abstracts: 1. Kindly provide quantified and analyzed data that proves this observation (both in Abstract and main text) "Male drivers had higher perceived usefulness and more positive attitudes than female drivers". Reply: We have added the analysis results for the gender and age influence on the model’s constructs in both Abstract and Discussion sections. Please check lines 42 to 50 and 493 to 496. Materials & Methods: 1. Lines 145 - 147: This sentence is not meaningful and seems to be incomplete. Kindly re-frame it.: "Prior studies on extending TAM support its modifications. The constructs' explanations and their correlations with other constructs are presented in the following hypotheses" Reply: Sorry for the confusion of the different versions of the manuscript. This sentence was cut in the previous revision version. 2. Hypothesis is not clearly written. Kindly write the hypothesis in to-the-point and crisp manner. Reply: Sorry about the confusion of the different versions of the manuscript. We had concluded the hypotheses together in Table 2 and added a new subsection named “Hypotheses” in the previous revision. Please check this section from line 256. 3. Research model and theories should not be discussed in Materials & Method Section. Please transfer chunk of the material to Discussion section. It is not clear that which methodology has been used to develop model and how the model is supposed to behave. Why a subheading of Methodology is being introduced under Materials and Methods section Reply: Sorry about the confusion due to different versions of the manuscript. We had deleted the irrelevant details and modified the sentences to improve the coherence between the paragraphs in the previous version. In addition, we had added Table 1, Table 2, and Figure 2 to explain the development of model construction and the supports. Please check lines 242 to 244 and 256 to 263. We checked that Methodology is a heading equivalent to Materials and Methods section. Please check the table of contents. Results: 1. All Tables still need formatting. Reply: Sorry for the confusion of the different versions of the manuscript. We had used abbreviations and reduced the size of the words of the tables in the previous revision version. In addition, we reduced the line spaces of the tables this time. Please check lines 305, 339, 351, 364, 383, and 395 for these tables. Discussion: 1. Please remove the repetition of text between Material & Methods and Discussion sections. Reply: We deleted the irrelevant details and modified the sentences to show the differences between Material & Methods and Discussion sections. Please check this section from line 409. 2. Please give precise implications of study as per the results obtained after questionnaire data analysis. It seems a bit jumbled up. Reply: We reduced the sentences in Implication subsection to make it clearer for reading. Please check this subsection from line 525. 3. Length of the Limitation and Conclusion section are a bit lengthy, it is suggested bulleted points may please be given. Reply: Sorry for the confusion of the different versions of the manuscript. We had reduced the sentences in the sections of Limitation and Conclusion in the previous revision version. In addition, we highlighted each limitation to make it clearer to read now. Please check the sections from line 547. Please let us know if you have any questions or further feedback. I hope our revisions can satisfy your comments and questions. Looking forward to your timely response. Sincerely yours, Dong and Itoh Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: rebuttal letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322221.r005
18 Mar 2025 Decision Letter - Sohaib Mustafa, Editor A modification of technology acceptance model for investigating driver-vehicle interaction systems usage PONE-D-24-38763R2 Dear Dr. Dong, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Sohaib Mustafa, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: Satisfied with authors' revision of the manuscript. Can be accepted for publication in the present form. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Deepti Majumdar ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322221.r006
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Sohaib Mustafa, Editor PONE-D-24-38763R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dong, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Sohaib Mustafa Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322221.r007

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .