Influence of vehicle expertise on acceleration profile preferences in electric vehicles
Seonghyun Kim, Jaesik Yang, Eunju Jeong · 2025 · 3 citationsRead the paper
This study examines how professional expertise influences acceleration profile preferences by comparing evaluations from development experts in internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) and electric vehicles (EVs). Subjective evaluations were conducted under light and middle tip-in acceleration conditions, where participants assessed five distinct acceleration profiles defined by maximum jerk, acceleration gradient, and jerk kurtosis. Results indicated that ICEV experts preferred profiles emphasizing stability and smooth transitions, while EV experts showed more balanced preferences for responsiveness and smoothness. Under light tip-in acceleration, ICEV experts demonstrated strong negative correlations between subjective preference and maximum jerk (r = -0.85) and jerk kurtosis (r = -0.75), indicating aversion to sharp transient dynamics. EV experts showed weaker correlations (r = -0.26 and r = -0.63, respectively), suggesting more flexible perception of these characteristics. Under middle tip-in acceleration, EV experts displayed strong negative correlations with maximum jerk (r = -0.82) and jerk kurtosis (r = -0.89), while ICEV experts exhibited negligible or weak associations with these parameters. These findings demonstrate that professional background significantly influences acceleration profile preferences, with ICEV experts valuing traditional driving dynamics and EV experts accepting more responsive characteristics typical of electric drivetrains. The results offer practical guidelines to improve user satisfaction and facilitate a smoother transition from ICEVs to EVs by aligning vehicle drivability characteristics with different user expectations based on their professional expertise and driving experience.
What the full text shows
Working prototype- Under light tip-in acceleration, ICEV experts showed strong negative correlations between preference and maximum jerk and jerk kurtosis. — r = -0.85 (max jerk), r = -0.75 (jerk kurtosis) (Light tip-in acceleration (target 0.1g))
- Under light tip-in acceleration, EV experts showed weaker correlations between preference and maximum jerk and jerk kurtosis compared to ICEV experts. — r = -0.26 (max jerk), r = -0.63 (jerk kurtosis) (Light tip-in acceleration (target 0.1g))
- Under middle tip-in acceleration, EV experts showed strong negative correlations between preference and maximum jerk and jerk kurtosis. — r = -0.82 (max jerk), r = -0.89 (jerk kurtosis) (Middle tip-in acceleration (target 0.15g))
- Under middle tip-in acceleration, ICEV experts showed minimal association between preference and maximum jerk. — r = -0.038 (Middle tip-in acceleration (target 0.15g))
- ICEV experts preferred Profile D (linear acceleration) most in light tip-in conditions. — theta = 0.744 (Light tip-in acceleration (target 0.1g))
- Both groups preferred Profiles B and D under middle tip-in conditions, with Profile B ranking highest. — ICEV theta = 1.265, EV theta = 0.538 (Middle tip-in acceleration (target 0.15g))
- Setup
- 15 male experts (ICEV and EV specialists) with >10 years experience; Hyundai Elantra Hybrid (22MY) in EV mode; target accelerations of 0.1g and 0.15g.
- How
- Subjective evaluations using a paired comparison method and the Bradley-Terry model were conducted on five acceleration profiles. Participants drove a hybrid vehicle in EV mode at a constant speed of 30 km/h under two different tip-in acceleration targets.
- Limitations
- Small sample size (15 evaluators) · Reliance on subjective evaluations prone to individual bias · Controlled experimental setting may not capture real-world driving complexities · Limited to experts; does not include general consumers
Summarized by Gemma 4 from the open-access full text · 8 Oct 2026. Read it