Error Patterns: Systematic Investigation of Deviations in Task Models

Bastide, Rémi; Basnyat, Sandra

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70816-2_9

Cited by 21 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Hierarchical Tasks Analysis Of Normative Pilot Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Task models are typically used in the early phases of system design [8] or user interface design [4] to get valuable information about task performance. They are also increasingly applied for the analysis of workplace situations, especially for human error analysis [1].In our approach we implement a tool chain which combines semi-formal and formal task analysis and modeling. The tool chain begins with AMBOSS [5], a tool for the semi-formal level of task analysis and modeling.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Detection of Pilot Errors in Data by Combining Task Modeling and Model Checking

Frische

Mistrzyk

Lüdtke

2009

Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper we show a consistent approach of using Hierarchical Task Analysis together with model checking to identify pilot errors during the interaction with cockpit automation systems in aircraft. Task analysis is used to model flight procedures which describe how to operate a specific system in a particular situation. Afterwards model checking is used to identify deviations from these procedures in empirical simulator data. We envision applying this method to automatically detect pilot errors during flight tests or pilot training.Keywords: Hierarchical Task Analysis, Model Checking, Error Analysis. Hierarchical Tasks Analysis of Normative Pilot ActivitiesOur goal is to identify aircraft pilot errors (e.g. omission of actions) during the interaction with cockpit automation systems while performing specific flight tasks. This is done based on two inputs: (1) Information about how the flight task has to be performed normatively and (2) data on the actual performance (recorded in flight simulations) of the task. We define pilot errors as deviations from normative activities. To get the first input we perform a hierarchical task analysis to produce a hierarchical task model.There are various approaches supporting analysis and modeling of tasks. Semiformal task analysis and modeling approaches such as [5,6] primarily concentrate on the hierarchical decomposition of tasks into subtasks and their temporal ordering. The models are semi-formal in the sense that they formally structure (hierarchy, temporal relations) informal elements (task descriptions in natural language). Formal task modeling approaches define a granular formal structure for the task descriptions, e.g. in form of Goals, Operators, Methods and Selection Rules (like in GOMS [4]). The result of a task analysis is a hierarchical task model. Task models are typically used in the early phases of system design [8] or user interface design [4] to get valuable information about task performance. They are also increasingly applied for the analysis of workplace situations, especially for human error analysis [1].In our approach we implement a tool chain which combines semi-formal and formal task analysis and modeling. The tool chain begins with AMBOSS [5], a tool for the semi-formal level of task analysis and modeling. This modeling environment provides different abstraction levels in a hierarchical manner, represented graphically in a tree-like format. AMBOSS offers different features for task inspection like task

show abstract

Section: Hierarchical Tasks Analysis Of Normative Pilot Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Detection of Pilot Errors in Data by Combining Task Modeling and Model Checking

Frische

Mistrzyk

Lüdtke

2009

Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, most of the current work in model-based design is concentrated on providing alternatives for task trees in CTT notation in form of structural UML diagrams (e.g. [18], [3], [2]). [15] suggests a mapping from tasks specified in a CTT model to methods in a UML class diagram.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting SW Engineers on Board: Task Modelling with Activity Diagrams

Brüning

Dittmar

Forbrig

et al. 2008

Engineering Interactive Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper argues for a transfer of knowledge and experience gained in task-based design to Software Engineering. A transformation of task models into activity diagrams as part of UML is proposed. By using familiar notations, software engineers might be encouraged to accept task modelling and to pay more attention to users and their tasks. Generally, different presentations of a model can help to increase its acceptance by various stakeholders. The presented approach allows both the visualization of task models as activity diagrams as well as task modelling with activity diagrams. Corresponding tool support is presented which includes the animation of task models. The tool itself was developed in a model-based way.

show abstract

“…For example, several researchers have demonstrated how task analytic models of normative human behavior can be manually permuted to include erroneous human behaviors: either simple deviations from the performance of actions in a task (Bolton et al, 2008; Fields, 2001) or more complicated, cognitively significant divergences such as post completion errors (Basnyat and Palanque, 2005; Palanque and Basnyat, 2004; Paternò and Santoro, 2002). Bastide and Basnyat (2007) and Fields (2001) have taken this a step further by introducing “error patterns” representing erroneous behavior deviations from normative task behavior models, where the manual application of the transformation rules will automatically incorporate the erroneous behavior in the desired location. This approach allows an expert on erroneous human behavior to examine a normative human task behavior model and selectively include erroneous human behaviors in locations where he or she thinks they might occur.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generating phenotypical erroneous human behavior to evaluate human–automation interaction using model checking

Bolton¹,

Bass²,

Siminiceanu³

2012

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breakdowns in complex systems often occur as a result of system elements interacting in unanticipated ways. In systems with human operators, human-automation interaction associated with both normative and erroneous human behavior can contribute to such failures. Model-driven design and analysis techniques provide engineers with formal methods tools and techniques capable of evaluating how human behavior can contribute to system failures. This paper presents a novel method for automatically generating task analytic models encompassing both normative and erroneous human behavior from normative task models. The generated erroneous behavior is capable of replicating Hollnagel’s zero-order phenotypes of erroneous action for omissions, jumps, repetitions, and intrusions. Multiple phenotypical acts can occur in sequence, thus allowing for the generation of higher order phenotypes. The task behavior model pattern capable of generating erroneous behavior can be integrated into a formal system model so that system safety properties can be formally verified with a model checker. This allows analysts to prove that a human-automation interactive system (as represented by the model) will or will not satisfy safety properties with both normative and generated erroneous human behavior. We present benchmarks related to the size of the statespace and verification time of models to show how the erroneous human behavior generation process scales. We demonstrate the method with a case study: the operation of a radiation therapy machine. A potential problem resulting from a generated erroneous human action is discovered. A design intervention is presented which prevents this problem from occurring. We discuss how our method could be used to evaluate larger applications and recommend future paths of development.

show abstract

Error Patterns: Systematic Investigation of Deviations in Task Models

Cited by 21 publications

References 13 publications

Detection of Pilot Errors in Data by Combining Task Modeling and Model Checking

Detection of Pilot Errors in Data by Combining Task Modeling and Model Checking

Getting SW Engineers on Board: Task Modelling with Activity Diagrams

Generating phenotypical erroneous human behavior to evaluate human–automation interaction using model checking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About