Formal Verification of Human-Automation Interaction

Degani, Asaf; Heymann, Michaël

doi:10.1518/0018720024494838

Cited by 139 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, cockpit black boxes have recorded pilots saying things such as "Why is it doing that?," "What is it doing now?," and "I can't stop it" (Faith, 1998). The value of working as a team and developing appropriate SA has increased in the information-rich environment of the highly computerized and automated airliner, when flying means managing the technology of various aircraft systems (Degani & Heymann, 2002). The industry and research approach has been to treat SA as an individual, mental, and perceptual phenomenon (Adams, Tenney, & Pew, 1995, p. 88;Beaumont, 2000, p. 361;Sarter & Woods, 1995, p. 16;Smith & Hancock, 1995, pp.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrity in the Airline Cockpit: Embodying Claims About Progress for the Conduct of an Approach Briefing

Nevile¹

2004

Research on Language & Social Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Toward the end of every airline flight, the pilots must prepare and agree on a plan for how the final stages of the flight-the descent, approach to the runway, and landing-will proceed, for what it is that they will do and know, as a crew, to bring their plane safely and unremarkably (all going well) to the ground. This plan emerges from a specific cockpit task called an approach briefing, which the pilots complete. In this article, I used transcriptions from video recordings of pilots at work on an actual scheduled passenger flight to examine in microdetail processes of talk-in-interaction as pilots conduct an approach briefing. My main interest is to show how the approach briefing emerges as talk and nontalk activities (e.g., writing, touching displays) are precisely coordinated to constitute a series of embodied claims, by the pilot leading the briefing, about his progress in conducting the various parts of the task. I suggest that this coordination is constitutive of work in the airline cockpit and most likely other sociotechnical work settings. In these settings, it is critical to perform and complete tasks and the talk and nontalk activities required for them in strict sequence, and

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrity in the Airline Cockpit: Embodying Claims About Progress for the Conduct of an Approach Briefing

Nevile¹

2004

Research on Language & Social Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Works such as these researcher [18] express the user machine interaction with an account of a formal description and they are not well reinforce the relation with user machine interaction. Correspondingly, they [20] established awareness of the link to unobservable and uncontrollable events for user but it had some weak points.…”

Section: Limitations On Current Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formal Analysis and Design of Supervisor and User Interface Allowing for Non-Deterministic Choices Using Weak Bi-Simulation

Khan

Wenlong

2018

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In human machine systems, a user display should contain sufficient information to encapsulate expressive and normative human operator behavior. Failure in such system that is commanded by supervisor can be difficult to anticipate because of unexpected interactions between the different users and machines. Currently, most interfaces have non-deterministic choices at state of machine. Inspired by the theories of single user of an interface established on discrete event system, we present a formal model of multiple users, multiple machines, a supervisor and a supervisor machine. The syntax and semantics of these models are based on the system specification using timed automata that adheres to desirable specification properties conducive to solving the non-deterministic choices for usability properties of the supervisor and user interface. Further, the succinct interface developed by applying the weak bi-simulation relation, where large classes of potentially equivalent states are refined into a smaller one, enables the supervisor and user to perform specified task correctly. Finally, the proposed approach is applied to a model of a manufacturing system with several users interacting with their machines, a supervisor with several users and a supervisor with a supervisor machine to illustrate the design procedure of human-machine systems. The formal specification is validated by z-eves toolset.

show abstract

“…They called for empirically grounded descriptions of design practice to develop frameworks to assist designers. Degani and Heymann (2002) proposed a methodology to enhance HCI by addressing four elements critical to operator interaction with automation: (a) the machine's behavior, (b) task specifications, (c) the operator's mental model of the machine's behavior, and (d) the user interface.…”

Section: Automationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Automation-by-Expertise-by-Training Interaction

Strauch

2016

Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: I introduce the automation-by-expertiseby-training interaction in automated systems and discuss its influence on operator performance.Background: Transportation accidents that, across a 30-year interval demonstrated identical automationrelated operator errors, suggest a need to reexamine traditional views of automation.Method: I review accident investigation reports, regulator studies, and literature on human computer interaction, expertise, and training and discuss how failing to attend to the interaction of automation, expertise level, and training has enabled operators to commit identical automation-related errors.Results: Automated systems continue to provide capabilities exceeding operators' need for effective system operation and provide interfaces that can hinder, rather than enhance, operator automation-related situation awareness. Because of limitations in time and resources, training programs do not provide operators the expertise needed to effectively operate these automated systems, requiring them to obtain the expertise ad hoc during system operations. As a result, many do not acquire necessary automation-related system expertise.Conclusion: Integrating automation with expected operator expertise levels, and within training programs that provide operators the necessary automation expertise, can reduce opportunities for automation-related operator errors.Application: Research to address the automationby-expertise-by-training interaction is needed. However, such research must meet challenges inherent to examining realistic sociotechnical system automation features with representative samples of operators, perhaps by using observational and ethnographic research. Research in this domain should improve the integration of design and training and, it is hoped, enhance operator performance.

show abstract

Formal Verification of Human-Automation Interaction

Cited by 139 publications

References 6 publications

Integrity in the Airline Cockpit: Embodying Claims About Progress for the Conduct of an Approach Briefing

Integrity in the Airline Cockpit: Embodying Claims About Progress for the Conduct of an Approach Briefing

Formal Analysis and Design of Supervisor and User Interface Allowing for Non-Deterministic Choices Using Weak Bi-Simulation

The Automation-by-Expertise-by-Training Interaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About