3.8 Proceedings Paper

A hierarchical framework to analyze control conflicts between human and machine

期刊

IFAC PAPERSONLINE
卷 49, 期 19, 页码 96-101

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.10.468

关键词

Automation; Shared Control; Human-Machine Cooperation; Conflict; Safety; Automobile; Aviation; Teleoperation

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [15H05716]
  2. VIDI-STW of the Dutch National Science Foundation. [14127]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15H05716] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Shared Control, where the machine and the human share tasks and control the situation together, and its extension cooperative automation are promising approaches to overcome automation-induced problems, such as lack of situation awareness and degradation of skill. However, the design of Shared Controllers and/or cooperative human-machine systems should be done in a very careful manner. One of the major issues is conflicts between the human and the machine: how to detect these conflicts, and how to resolve them, if necessary? A complicating factor is that when the human is right, conflicts are undesirable (resulting in nuisance, degraded performance, etc), but when the machine is right, conflicts are desirable (warning the operator, or proper assistance or overruling). Research has pointed out several types and causes of conflicts, but offers no coherent framework for design and evaluation guidelines. In this paper, we propose such a theoretical framework in order to structure and relate different types of conflicts. The framework is inspired by a hierarchical task analysis, and identifies five possible sources of conflicts: intent, information gathering, information processing, decision-making and action implementation. Examples of conflicts in several application domains such as automobile, telerobotics, and surgery are discussed to illustrate the applicability of this framework. (C) 2016, IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control) Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据