Human-machine cooperation in car driving for lateral safety : delegation and mutual control

Hoc, Jean‐Michel; Mars, Franck; Milleville-Pennel, Isabelle; Jolly, Élise; Netto, Mariana; Blosseville, J M

doi:10.3917/th.692.0153

Cited by 45 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This failure has been termed complacency (Hoc, 2001;Parasuraman, Molloy, & Singh, 1993;Smith, McCoy, & Layton, 1997) and has been mainly studied in supervision tasks that imply automation or computers (for example, car driving: Hoc et al, 2006;airline pilots: Layton, Smith, & McCoy, 1994; air traffic control: Metzger & Parasuraman, 2001). However, other tasks that are only partially automated, such as those found in manufacturing scheduling, are also affected by this problem.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of algorithm and result comprehensibility of automated scheduling on complacency

Cegarra¹,

Hoc²

2008

Hum Ftrs & Erg Mfg Svc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies have stressed that even expert operators who are aware of a machine's limits could adopt its proposals without questioning them (i.e., the complacency phenomenon). In production scheduling for manufacturing, this is a significant problem, as it is often suggested that the machine be allowed to build the production schedule, confining the human role to that of rescheduling. This article evaluates the characteristics of scheduling algorithms on human rescheduling performance, the quality of which was related to complacency. It is suggested that scheduling algorithms be characterized as having result comprehensibility (the result respects the scheduler's expectations in terms of the discourse rules of the information display) or algorithm comprehensibility (the complexity of the algorithm hides some important constraints). The findings stress, on the one hand, that result comprehensibility is necessary to achieve good production performance and to limit complacency. On the other hand, algorithm comprehensibility leads to poor performance due to the very high cost of understanding the algorithm. C 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of algorithm and result comprehensibility of automated scheduling on complacency

Cegarra¹,

Hoc²

2008

Hum Ftrs & Erg Mfg Svc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of the term 'cooperation' in the context of human -machine systems was suggested by Rasmussen (1983), Hollnagel and Woods (1983) and Sheridan (2002), elaborated for general human -machine cooperation, e.g., by Hoc (2000), and exemplified for vehicle control by, e.g. Flemisch et al (2003), Hoc et al (2006), Biester (2008), Holzmann (2007), Flemisch et al (2008a) and Ergonomics 345 Hakuli et al (2009). Further examples of cooperative or shared control can also be found in Mulder, Abbink, and Boer (2012).…”

Section: Cooperative (Guidance And) Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards cooperative guidance and control of highly automated vehicles: H-Mode and Conduct-by-Wire

Flemisch¹,

Bengler²,

Bubb³

et al. 2014

Ergonomics

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides a general ergonomic framework of cooperative guidance and control for vehicles with an emphasis on the cooperation between a human and a highly automated vehicle. In the twenty-first century, mobility and automation technologies are increasingly fused. In the sky, highly automated aircraft are flying with a high safety record. On the ground, a variety of driver assistance systems are being developed, and highly automated vehicles with increasingly autonomous capabilities are becoming possible. Human-centred automation has paved the way for a better cooperation between automation and humans. How can these highly automated systems be structured so that they can be easily understood, how will they cooperate with the human? The presented research was conducted using the methods of iterative build-up and refinement of framework by triangulation, i.e. by instantiating and testing the framework with at least two derived concepts and prototypes. This article sketches a general, conceptual ergonomic framework of cooperative guidance and control of highly automated vehicles, two concepts derived from the framework, prototypes and pilot data. Cooperation is exemplified in a list of aspects and related to levels of the driving task. With the concept 'Conduct-by-Wire', cooperation happens mainly on the guidance level, where the driver can delegate manoeuvres to the automation with a specialised manoeuvre interface. With H-Mode, a haptic-multimodal interaction with highly automated vehicles based on the H(orse)-Metaphor, cooperation is mainly done on guidance and control with a haptically active interface. Cooperativeness should be a key aspect for future human-automation systems. Especially for highly automated vehicles, cooperative guidance and control is a research direction with already promising concepts and prototypes that should be further explored. The application of the presented approach is every human-machine system that moves and includes high levels of assistance/automation.

show abstract

“…As a consequence, fewer attentional resources may be allocated to the processing of this information which may in turn hinder appropriate bottom-up control of attention, for example, when unexpected situations occur that demand for the driver's intervention (e.g., obstacles on the road that are not recognised by the lane keeping assistance system). Hoc et al (2006) performed a driving study in which they investigated whether driving with a Heading Control (HC) system affected drivers' processing of visual information necessary for either lateral or longitudinal control of the vehicle in curves. Specifically, they compared drivers' perception of visual information located either near to the tangent point of a curve (assumed to be critical for lateral control of the vehicle) or located in the straight-ahead visual field (assumed to be critical for speed adjustment).…”

Section: Changes In the Task Goal Structure Due To Automationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although doubts may be raised regarding the subjective nature of the measurement, results seem to be in accordance with the assumption that active processing of information related to an automated subtask (in this case: lateral control) may be reduced because it is no longer relevant for performance of the remaining task components (in this case: longitudinal control). It must be added that Hoc et al (2006) attributed this effect not to changes in cognitive processes, but to complacency.…”

Section: Changes In the Task Goal Structure Due To Automationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drivers’ Reliance on Lane-Keeping Assistance Systems as a Function of the Level of Assistance

Popken

Krems

2015

Z. Arb. Wiss.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human-machine cooperation in car driving for lateral safety : delegation and mutual control

Cited by 45 publications

References 1 publication

The role of algorithm and result comprehensibility of automated scheduling on complacency

The role of algorithm and result comprehensibility of automated scheduling on complacency

Towards cooperative guidance and control of highly automated vehicles: H-Mode and Conduct-by-Wire

Drivers’ Reliance on Lane-Keeping Assistance Systems as a Function of the Level of Assistance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About