Haptic shared control: smoothly shifting control authority?

Abstract

Literature points to persistent issues in humanautomation interaction, which are caused either when the human does not understand the automation or when the automation does not understand the human. Design guidelines for human-automation interaction aim to avoid such issues and commonly agree that the human should have continuous interaction and communication with the automation system and its authority level and should retain final authority. This paper argues that haptic shared control is a promising approach to meet the commonly voiced design guidelines for human-automation interaction, especially for automotive applications. The goal of the paper is to provide evidence for this statement, by discussing several realizations of haptic shared control found in literature. We show that literature provides ample experimental evidence that haptic shared control can lead to short-term performance benefits (e.g., faster and more accurate vehicle control; lower levels of control effort; reduced demand for visual attention). We conclude that although the continuous intuitive physical interaction inherent in haptic shared control is expected to reduce long-term issues with humanautomation interaction, little experimental evidence for this is provided. Therefore, future research on haptic shared control should focus more on issues related to long-term use such as trust, overreliance, dependency on the system, and retention of skills.

Breaking the Human-Robot Deadlock: Surpassing Shared Control Performance Limits with Sparse Human-Robot Interaction

“…Sliding scale autonomy [20] relaxes discrete LOA to a continuum of assistance. Additionally, prevailing shared control approaches such as potential field methods [2], virtual fixture based methods [25], [1], and haptic shared control [14] are ultimately rooted in LOA/FA. For example, in [28], the optimal controller of a cart-pendulum task was used in conjunction with a haptic interface to filter suboptimal user input (the machine decided when to give assistance).…”

F5-2 Understanding Human Factor Issues of The Shared Control System: a literature review

“…Trust issue has to do with relatively long-term use of the system (Abbink et al, 2012). Trusting the operation of the system is directly related to the adoption of system by the human agent.…”

“…Understand category means that how much human can easily and intuitively understand the operating principle of the system (Abbink et al, 2012;Akamatus et al, 2013;Billings, 1997;Bruemmer et al, 2002;Hoc, 2001). Various problems are able to arise when the human agent does not understand the machine agent properly from the perspective such as capabilities, boundaries of operation, current functionality or goals (Abbink et al, 2012).…”

“…Various problems are able to arise when the human agent does not understand the machine agent properly from the perspective such as capabilities, boundaries of operation, current functionality or goals (Abbink et al, 2012). For example, the efficiency of the system may decrease and risky situation may arise.…”

Driver Involvement in Lane-Change Decision Making for Maintaining Situation Awareness during Automated Driving

“…One way to overcome the out-of-the-loop problem is to apply the haptic shared control concept [7], where the human and the automation "share" the control device (steering wheel in this case). Research has shown that shared control is better than hands-off automated driving for a driver to maintain his/her sit- * Advanced Safety System Development DiV.…”