All Issue

2026 Vol.44, Issue 2 Preview Page

Article

휴먼팩터를 고려한 보행자-자율차 상호작용 분석기법 개발
Hoseon KIM1
,
Jieun KO2
,
Cheol OH3*
김 호선1
,
고 지은2
,
오 철3*
1Ph.D., Department of Smart City Engineering, Hanyang University, Ansan 15588, Korea
2CEO, HyST Systematics, Inc., Ansan 15588, Korea
3Professor, Department of Transportation and Logistics Engineering, Hanyang University, Ansan 15588, Korea
1한양대학교 스마트시티공학과 박사
2(주)하이스트시스템매틱스 대표
3한양대학교 교통ㆍ물류공학과 교수
*Corresponding Author
30 April 2026. pp. 184-207
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

This study proposes a methodology to quantify the relationship between autonomous vehicles (AVs) passengers’ psychological anxiety and traffic safety during interactions between AVs and pedestrians in mixed urban traffic. Electroencephalogram (EEG) signals collected from AV passengers are used to derive an Anxiety & Nervousness Index (ANI), representing their level of anxiety and nervousness, and its relationship with the Post-Encroachment Time (PET), a surrogate safety measure indicating pedestrian–vehicle conflict risk, is analyzed. Based on California AV crash reports and previous studies, three interaction scenarios—jaywalking, pedestrian island crossing, and mid-block crossing—are constructed, and scenario-specific PET and ANI values are computed in real time. Nonlinear regression models are fitted to the ANI–PET relationship for each scenario. The results show that, for the pedestrian island crossing scenario, the ANI–PET relationship is best described by a Gaussian function, whereas jaywalking and mid-block crossing scenarios are best captured by a double-exponential function. In all scenarios, ANI decreases nonlinearly with increasing PET, exhibiting a pattern of rapid drop, gradual relaxation, and saturation. Using an ANI threshold of 1.5 to indicate an anxious state, PET thresholds of 3.4 s, 3.0 s, and 2.8 s are obtained for jaywalking, pedestrian island, and mid-block crossing scenarios, respectively, below which AV passengers exhibit high anxiety levels. These findings suggest that, when AV passengers have no direct control authority over the vehicle, larger PET values than those reported in previous studies are required to secure psychological safety. The derived ANI–PET functions and thresholds can be used to define safe-entry conditions for different Operational Design Domains (ODDs), to develop AV performance evaluation metrics, and to support policies and educational materials aimed at enhancing pedestrian safety.

Keywords
anxiety & nervousness index
autonomous vehicles
driving simulation
pedestrians
post-encroachment time

본 연구는 도심 혼합교통 환경에서 보행자와 자율주행차(Autonomous Vehicles, AVs) 간 상호작용 시 AV 탑승자의 심리적 불안 수준과 교통안전 간의 정량적 관계를 규명하기 위한 방법론을 제시한다. 이를 위해 AV 탑승자의 뇌파(Electroencephalogram, EEG)로부터 불안·긴장 수준을 나타내는 Anxiety & Nervousness Index(ANI)를 산출하고, 보행자–차량 상충 가능성을 나타내는 Post-Encroachment Time(PET)과의 관계를 분석하였다. 캘리포니아 자율차 관련 사고자료와 기존문헌을 기반으로 무단횡단, 교통섬 횡단, mid-block 횡단의 세 가지 상호작용 시나리오를 구축하고, 시나리오별 실시간 예측된 PET와 ANI를 산출하였다. ANI–PET 관계에 비선형 회귀모형을 적합한 결과, 교통섬 횡단 시나리오에서 AV 탑승자의 ANI는 PET에 대해 가우스 함수 형태의 변화를 보였으며, 무단횡단과 mid-block 횡단 시나리오에서는 2항 지수함수가 최적 모형으로 도출되었다. 모든 시나리오에서 ANI는 PET가 증가함에 따라 급감–완화–포화로 이어지는 비선형 감소 양상을 나타냈다. ANI 기준값 1.5를 적용하여 불안 상태에 해당하는 PET 임계값을 산출한 결과, 무단횡단, 교통섬, mid-block 시나리오에서 각각 3.4 초, 3.0 초, 2.8 초 이하의 PET 구간에서 AV 탑승자의 불안 수준이 높게 나타났다. 이는 AV 탑승자가 직접 제어권을 갖지 못하는 상황에서 기존 연구에서 제시된 PET 임계값보다 더 큰 PET가 확보될 때 심리적 안전감이 확보될 수 있음을 시사한다. 도출된 ANI–PET 함수와 임계값은 운행 설계 영역(Operational Design Domains, ODDs)별 안전 진입 기준과 자율주행 성능평가 지표, 보행자 보호를 위한 정책·교육 자료로 활용가능할 것으로 기대된다.

키워드
불안감 지수
자율주행차
주행 시뮬레이터
보행자
Post-Encroachment Time
References
1

Abd Rahman N. I., Dawal S. Z. M., Yusoff N. (2020), Driving Mental Workload and Performance of Ageing Drivers, Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav., 69, 265-285.

10.1016/j.trf.2020.01.019
2

Abdel-Aty M., Ding S. (2024), A Matched Case-Control Analysis of Autonomous vs Human-Driven Vehicle Accidents, Nature Communications, 15, 48526.

10.1038/s41467-024-48526-438890354PMC11189485
3

Ahn S., Nguyen T., Jang H., Kim J. G., Jun S. C. (2016), Exploring Neuro-Physiological Correlates of Drivers' Mental Fatigue Caused by Sleep Deprivation Using Simultaneous EEG, ECG, and fNIRS Data, Frontiers in human neuroscience, 10, 219.

10.3389/fnhum.2016.0021927242483PMC4865510
4

Ahsan M. J., Rivas A., Abdel-Aty M., Ye X. (2024), Vehicle-Pedestrian Near-Miss Analysis at Signalized Midblock Crosswalks using PET, Journal of Safety Research, 80, 1-12.

5

Angulo A. V., Robartes E., Guo X., Chen T. D., Heydarian A., Smith B. L. (2024), Evaluating Current and Future Pedestrian Mid-Block Crossing Safety Treatments Using Immersive Virtual Environments, Accid. Anal. Prev., 206, 107715.

10.1016/j.aap.2024.107715
6

Anik M. A. H., Ismail K., Meng Q. (2021), Investigation Of Pedestrian Jaywalking Behaviour at Mid-Block Using Trajectory Prediction, Safety Science, 141, 105312.

10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105448
7

Ankunda A., Lin X., Wang J., Zhu S. (2024), Pedestrian Crash Risk Analysis Using Extreme Value Models: New Insights and Evidence, Accid. Anal. Prev., 198, 107566.

10.1016/j.aap.2024.107633
8

Anwari N., Lu P., Alhajyaseen W. (2023), Investigating Surrogate Safety Measures at Midblock Crosswalks with Pedestrian Treatments, Accid. Anal. Prev., 187, 107089.

9

Beggiato M., Hartwich F., Schleinitz K., Krems J. F., Lemmer K., Keinath A. (2019), Physiological Correlates of Discomfort in Automated Driving, Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav., 66, 445-458.

10.1016/j.trf.2019.09.018
10

Bin-Nun A. Y., Lizarazo C., Panasci A., Madden S. (2024), What Do Surrogate Safety Metrics Measure? Understanding Driving Safety as A Continuum, Accid. Anal. Prev., 195, 107182.

10.1016/j.aap.2023.107245
11

California Department of Motor Vehicles (n.d.), Autonomous Vehicle Collision Reports, Retrieved from the California DMV website.

12

Chaudhari A., Maurya A. K., Dey P. P. (2021), Exploring Pedestrian Surrogate Safety Measures by Road Type, IATSS Research, 45(4), 475-486.

10.1016/j.iatssr.2020.06.001
13

Chen X., Li X., Xu H. (2025), Balancing Safety and Efficiency for Autonomous Vehicles at Uncontrolled Crosswalks, Accid. Anal. Prev., Advance online publication.

10.1016/j.aap.2025.108111
14

Dasari Y., Chebolu L. R., Balasubramanian V. (2025), Electroencephalogram Analysis on Alpha/Beta and Theta/Beta Ratios Due to Shirodhara, J. Ayurveda Integr. Med., 16(2), 101094.

10.1016/j.jaim.2024.10109440101439PMC12169317
15

Delorme A., Makeig S. (2004), EEGLAB: An Open Source Toolbox for Analysis of Single-Trial Eeg Dynamics Including Independent Component Analysis, J. Neurosci. Methods, 134(1), 9-21.

10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009
16

De Winkel K. N., Irmak T., Happee R., Shyrokau B. (2023), Standards for passenger comfort in automated vehicles: Acceleration and jerk. Applied Ergonomics, 106, 103881.

10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103881
17

Di Flumeri G., Borghini G., Aricò P., Sciaraffa N., Lanzi P., Pozzi S., Babiloni F. (2018), EEG-based Mental Workload Neurometric to Evaluate The Impact of Different Traffic and Road Conditions in Real Driving Settings, Frontiers in human neuroscience, 12, 509.

10.3389/fnhum.2018.0050930618686PMC6305466
18

Do W., Saunier N., Miranda-Moreno L. F. (2024), Evaluation of conventional surrogate indicators of safety for CAVs in car-following at signalized intersections, Transp. Res. Rec. (Advance online publication)

10.1177/03611981241265849
19

Elsayyad M., Sayed T., Abdel-Aty M. (2024), Determinants of Road User Behavior at Marked Midblock Crosswalks, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 51(10), 1211-1224.

20

Genser A., Sadeghian S., Matthies D. J. C., Watzenig D. (2022), Ride Comfort Assessment for Automated Vehicles Utilizing A Road Surface Model and Monte Carlo Simulations, Comput. Aided. Civ. Infrastruct Eng., 37(10), 1316-1334.

10.1111/mice.12787
21

Gettman D., Pu L., Sayed T., Shelby S. (2008), Surrogate Safety Assessment Model and Validation (FHWA-HRT-08-051), Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center.

22

Getzmann S., Reiser J. E., Karthaus M., Rudinger G., Wascher E. (2021), Measuring Correlates of Mental Workload During Simulated Driving Using Ceegrid Electrodes: A Test-Retest Reliability Analysis, Frontiers in neuroergonomics, 2, 729197.

10.3389/fnrgo.2021.72919738235239PMC10790874
23

Guo H., Khan M., Kwigizile V., Nambisan S. (2022), Driving Behavior at Midblock Crosswalks with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs), Accid. Anal. Prev., 170, 106688.

10.1016/j.aap.2021.106406
24

Haufe S., Kim J. W., Kim I. H., Sonnleitner A., Schrauf M., Curio G., Blankertz B. (2014), Electrophysiology-Based Detection of Emergency Braking Intention in Real-World Driving, J. Neural. Eng., 11(5), 056011.

10.1088/1741-2560/11/5/056011
25

Hu X., Hu J. (2024), Investigating mental workload caused by NDRTs in highly automated driving with deep learning, Traffic Inj. Prev., 25(3), 372-380.

10.1080/15389588.2023.2276657
26

International Transport Forum (2023), Preparing Infrastructure for Automated Vehicles, OECD Publishing.

27

Ismail K., Sayed T., Saunier N., Lim C. (2009), Automated Analysis of Pedestrian-Vehicle Conflicts using Video Data, Transp. Res. Rec., 2140(1), 44-54.

10.3141/2140-05
28

Jang J., Jung A., Oh C., Park J., Yun D. (2023), Evaluating Driving Safety of Road Alignment Conditions by Predicted Driver’S Psychophysiological Workload using Vehicle Maneuvering Data, Transp. Res. Rec., 2678(5).

10.1177/03611981231189741
29

Jiang C., Dai D., Li W. (2020), Impact of Right-Turn Channelization on Pedestrian Safety at Signalized Intersections, Accid. Anal. Prev., 144, 105655.

10.1016/j.aap.2019.105399
30

Jo Y., Jung A., Oh C., Park J. (2024), Characterizing The Driving Behavior of Manual Vehicles Following Autonomous Vehicles and Its Impact on Mixed Traffic Performance, Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav., 107, 69-83.

10.1016/j.trf.2024.08.028
31

Jo Y., Oh C. (2024), A Lane Change Strategy to Enhance Traffic Safety in The Coexistence of Autonomous Vehicles and Manual Vehicles, J. Adv. Transp., 2024, 6126204.

10.1155/2024/6126204
32

Johnsson C., Laureshyn A., De Ceunynck T. (2018), In Search of Surrogate Safety Indicators for Vulnerable Road Users: A Review Of Surrogate Safety Indicators, Transp. Rev., 38(6), 765-785.

10.1080/01441647.2018.1442888
33

Kabilmiharbi N., Khamis N. K., Noh N. A. (2022), Commonly Used Assessment Method to Evaluate Mental Workload for Multiple Driving Distractions: A Systematic Review, Iran. J. Public Health, 51(3), 482.

10.18502/ijph.v51i3.892435865045PMC9276604
34

Kang X., Namgung M., Fujiwara A., Kim W., Wang W. (2019), Analysis of Vehicle Maneuverability and Driving Characteristics on A Curved Road Condition, KSCE J. Civ. Eng., 23, 420-432.

10.1007/s12205-018-1803-y
35

Kang X., Namgung M., Fujiwara A., Kim W., Wang W. (2024), Central Eeg Beta/Alpha Ratio Predicts The Population-Wide Efficiency of Advertisements, Brain Sciences, 13(1), 57.

10.3390/brainsci1301005736672039PMC9856603
36

Khuzam E. A., Lanzaro G., Sayed T. (2025), Impact of jaywalking on pedestrian interaction behavior: A multiagent Markov Game-based analysis, Accid. Anal. Prev., 220, 108141.

10.1016/j.aap.2025.108141
37

Kim J. Y., Jeong C. H., Jung M. J., Park J. H., Jung D. H. (2013), Highly Reliable Driving Workload Analysis Using Driver Electroencephalogram (EEG) Activities During Driving, International Journal of Automotive Technology, 14(6), 965-970.

10.1007/s12239-013-0106-z
38

Lee E., Seo Y., Lim D., So J., Kim H. (2024), Analysis of Urban Hazardous Road for Autonomous Vehicle Using Monitoring Indicator: Focused on Pangyo Zero City, J. Korean Soc. Intell. Transp. Syst., 23(6), 305-324.

10.12815/kits.2024.23.6.305
39

Lee S., Arvin R., Khattak A. J. (2023), Advancing Investigation of Automated Vehicle Crashes Using Text Analytics of Crash Narratives and Bayesian Analysis, Accid. Anal. Prev., 181, 106932.

10.1016/j.aap.2022.106932
40

Li X., Yang L., Yan X. (2022), An Exploratory Study of Drivers’ Eeg Response During Emergent Collision Avoidance, Journal of Safety Research, 82, 241-250.

10.1016/j.jsr.2022.05.015
41

Li Y., Fernie G. R. (2010), Pedestrian Behavior and Safety on A Two-Stage Crossing with A Center Refuge Island and The Effect of Winter Weather on Compliance, Accid. Anal. Prev., 42(2), 496-505.

10.1016/j.aap.2010.01.004
42

Lim D., Na S., Yoon S., Jung J., Kim H. (2025), Road Environment Suitability Evaluation of Autonomous Vehicles Using an Autonomous Driving Simulator, Int. J. Highw. Eng., 27(3), 133-144.

10.7855/IJHE.2025.27.3.133
43

Lin C. T., Wu R. C., Liang S. F., Chao W. H., Chen Y. J., Jung T. P. (2005), EEG-based Drowsiness Estimation for Safety Driving Using Independent Component Analysis, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I, Regular Papers, 52(12), 2726-2738.

10.1109/TCSI.2005.857555
44

Lin C.-T., Chuang C.-H., Huang C.-S., Tsai S.-F., Lu S.-W., Chen Y.-H., Ko L.-W. (2014), Wireless and Wearable Eeg System for Evaluating Driver Vigilance, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Circuits. Syst., 8(2), 165-176.

10.1109/TBCAS.2014.2316224
45

Liu Q., Wang X., Wu X., Glaser Y., He L. (2021), Crash Comparison of Autonomous and Conventional Vehicles Using Pre-Crash Scenario Typology, Accid Anal Prev., 159, 106281.

10.1016/j.aap.2021.106281
46

Liu R., Qi S., Hao S., Lian G., Luo Y. (2023), Using Electroencephalography to Analyse Drivers’ Different Cognitive Workload Characteristics based on On-Road Experiment, Frontiers in psychology, 14, 1107176.

10.3389/fpsyg.2023.110717637168425PMC10164949
47

Luck S. J. (2014), An Introduction to The Event-Related Potential Technique, MIT Press.

48

Ma S., Fu R., Fan C. (2024), Cognitive Load During Driving: Eeg Microstate Metrics Are Sensitive Indicators, Accid. Anal. Prev., 199, 107539.

10.1016/j.aap.2024.107769
49

Mohamed M. G., Saunier N. (2013), Motion Prediction Methods for Surrogate Safety Analysis, Transp. Res. Rec., 2386(1), 168-178.

10.3141/2386-19
50

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2017), Automated Driving Systems: A Vision for Safety, U.S. Department of Transportation.

51

Ni Y., Wang Y., Khattak A. (2016), Evaluation of Pedestrian Safety at Intersections Using Surrogate Safety Measures, Accid. Anal. Prev., 93, 219-229.

52

Palatinus Z., Lukovics M., Volosin M., Dudás Z., Prónay S., Majó-Petri Z., Szalay Z. (2025), Passenger Physiology in Self-Driving Vehicles During Unexpected Events, Scientific Reports, 15(1), 7899.

10.1038/s41598-024-81960-440050349PMC11885648
53

Palatinus Z., Volosin M., Csábi E., Hallgató E., Hajnal E., Lukovics M., Majo-Petri Z. (2022), Physiological Measurements in Social Acceptance of Self Driving Technologies, Scientific reports, 12(1), 13312.

10.1038/s41598-022-17049-735922644PMC9349214
54

Patel E., Kushwaha D. S. (2020), Clustering Cloud Workloads: K-Means vs Gaussian Mixture Model, Procedia Comput. Sci., 171, 158-167.

10.1016/j.procs.2020.04.017
55

Paul M., Ghosh I. (2020), Post Encroachment Time Threshold Identification for Right-Turn Related Crashes at Unsignalized Intersections on Intercity Highways Under Mixed Traffic, Int. J. Inj. Contr. Saf. Promot., 27(2), 121-135.

10.1080/17457300.2019.1669666
56

Peesapati L. N., Hunter M. P., Rodgers M. O. (2013), Evaluation of Post Encroachment Time as Surrogate for Opposing Left-Turn Crashes, Transportation Research Record, 2386(1), 42-51.

10.3141/2386-06
57

Peesapati L. N., Hunter M. P., Rodgers M. O. (2018), Can Post Encroachment Time Substitute Intersection Characteristics in Crash Prediction Models?, Journal of Safety Research, 66, 205-211.

10.1016/j.jsr.2018.05.002
58

Pokorny P., Hurni P. (2022), Descriptive Analysis of Reports on Autonomous Vehicle Collisions, Traffic Safety Research, 2(3), 1-11.

10.55329/xydm4000
59

Qi W., Wang W., Shen B., Wu J. (2020), A Modified Post Encroachment Time Model of Urban Road Merging Area Based on Lane-Change Characteristics, IEEE Access, 8, 72835-72846.

10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2987959
60

Rasouli A., Tsotsos J. K. (2019), Autonomous Vehicles That Interact with Pedestrians: A Survey of Theory and Practice, IEEE trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., Advance online publication.

10.1109/TITS.2019.2901817
61

Raufi B., Longo L. (2022), An Evaluation of The Eeg Alpha-to-Theta and Theta-to-Alpha Band Ratios as Indexes of Mental Workload, Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 16, 861967.

10.3389/fninf.2022.86196735651718PMC9149374
62

SAE International (2021), Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles (J3016_202104), SAE International.

63

Schroeder B. J., Rouphail N. M. (2011), Event-based Modeling of Driver Yielding Behavior at Unsignalized Crosswalks, Transp. Res. Rec., 2192(1), 121-130.

64

Seo Y., Lim D., Lee J., So J., Kim H. (2025), A Framework for Evaluating Driving Patterns of Automated Vehicle based on On-Road Driving Records, IEEE Access. (Advance Online Publication)

10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3556299
65

Song B. G., Kang N. (2024), Removal of Movement Artifacts and Assessment of Mental Stress Analyzing Electroencephalogram of Non-Driving Passengers Under Whole-Body Vibration, Frontiers in Neuroscience, 18, 1328704.

10.3389/fnins.2024.132870438726034PMC11079143
66

Stapel J. C., Mullakkal-Babu F. A., Happee R., de Winter J. C. F. (2019), Automated Driving Reduces Perceived Workload, but Increases Objective Cognitive Load, Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav., 60, 590-605.

10.1016/j.trf.2018.11.006
67

Wang Y.-K., Jung T.-P., Lin C.-T. (2018), Theta and Alpha Oscillations in Attentional Interaction During Distracted Driving, Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 12, 3.

10.3389/fnbeh.2018.0000329479310PMC5811509
68

Wascher E., Arnau S., Reiser J. E., Rudinger G., Karthaus M., Rinkenauer G., Getzmann S. (2019), Evaluating Mental Load During Realistic Driving Simulations by Means of Round The Ear Electrodes, Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, 940.

10.3389/fnins.2019.0094031551695PMC6737043
69

Wascher E., Getzmann S., Karthaus M. (2016), Driver State Examination—Treading New Paths, Accid. Anal. Prev., 91, 157-165.

10.1016/j.aap.2016.02.029
70

Wascher E., Reiser J., Rinkenauer G., Larrá M., Dreger F. A., Schneider D., Arnau S. (2023), Neuroergonomics on The Go: An Evaluation of The Potential of Mobile Eeg for Workplace Assessment and Design, Human Factors, 65(1), 86-106.

10.1177/0018720821100770733861182PMC9846382
71

Wickens C. D., Helton W. S., Hollands J. G., Banbury S. (2021), Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, Routledge.

10.4324/9781003177616
72

World Health Organization (2023), Global Status Report on Road Safety 2023, WHO.

73

Yusuf M. S. U., Islam M., Roy S. (2019), Stress Identification During Sustained Mental Task and Brain Relaxation Modeling with Beta/Alpha Power Ratio, In 2019 4th International Conference On Electrical Information and Communication Technology (EICT), 1-5. IEEE.

10.1109/EICT48899.2019.9068748
74

Zhang S., Sun D., Ding C., Huang J. (2020), Prediction of Pedestrian-Vehicle Conflicts at Signalized Intersections Using Trajectory Data, Accid. Anal. Prev., 144, 105610.

10.1016/j.aap.2020.105799
75

Zhang T., Yang J., Chen M., Li Z., Zang J., Qu X. (2024), EEG-based Assessment of Driver Trust in Automated Vehicles, Expert Systems with Applications, 246, 123196.

10.1016/j.eswa.2024.123196
76

Zhao C., Zhao M., Liu J., Zheng C. (2012), EEG/ECG Assessment of Mental Fatigue in A Driving Simulator, Accid. Anal. Prev., 45, 83-90.

10.1016/j.aap.2011.11.019
77

Zheng L., Zhou H., Jiang X. (2021), Investigating Consecutive Conflicts of Pedestrian Crossing at Signalized Intersections, Accid. Anal. Prev., 157, 106180.

10.1016/j.aap.2021.106402
Information
  • Publisher :Korean Society of Transportation
  • Publisher(Ko) :대한교통학회
  • Journal Title :Journal of Korean Society of Transportation
  • Journal Title(Ko) :대한교통학회지
  • Volume : 44
  • No :2
  • Pages :184-207
  • Received Date : 2025-09-03
  • Revised Date : 2025-10-05
  • Accepted Date : 2025-11-19
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.7470/jkst.2026.44.2.184
Journal Informaiton Journal of Korean Society of Transportation Journal of Korean Society of Transportation
Archives
: 2015 Vol.34~
  • NRF
  • KOFST
  • crossref cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close