This paper describes a paradigm for human/automation control sharing in which the automation acts through a motor coupled to a machine's manual control interface. The manual interface becomes a haptic display, continually informing the human about automation actions. While monitoring by feel, users may choose either to conform to the automation or override it and express their own control intentions. This paper's objective is to demonstrate that adding automation through haptic display can be used not only to improve performance on a primary task but also to reduce perceptual demands or free attention for a secondary task. Results are presented from three experiments in which 11 participants completed a lane-following task using a motorized steering wheel on a fixed-base driving simulator. The automation behaved like a copilot, assisting with lane following by applying torques to the steering wheel. Results indicate that haptic assist improves lane following by least 30%, p < .0001, while reducing visual demand by 29%, p < .0001, or improving reaction time in a secondary tone localization task by 18 ms, p = .0009. Potential applications of this research include the design of automation interfaces based on haptics that support human/automation control sharing better than traditional push-button automation interfaces.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bainbridge, L. (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19, 775–779.
2.
Christoffersen, K., & Woods, D. D. (2002). How to make automated systems team players. In E. Salas (Ed.), Advances in human performance and cognitive engineering research: Automation (Vol. 2, pp. 1–12). New York: Elsevier Science.
3.
Dennerlein, J. T., & Yang, M. C. (2001). Haptic force-feedback devices for the office computer: Performance and musculoskeletal loading issues. Human Factors, 43, 278–286.
4.
Driver, J., & Spence, C. (2004). Crossmodal spatial attention: Evidence from human performance. In C. Spence & J. Driver (Eds.), Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention (pp. 179–220. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5.
Gillespie, R. B. (2004). Haptic interface to virtual environments. In T. Kurfess (Ed.), CRC handbook on robotics and automation (pp. 23.1–23.23). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
6.
Gillespie, R. B., Hoffman, M., & Freudenberg, J. (2003). Haptic interface for hands-on instruction in system dynamics and embedded control. In 11th International Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, IEEE Virtual Reality (pp. 125–131). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
7.
Gillespie, T. D. (1992). Fundamentals of vehicle dynamics.Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
8.
Hasser, C. J., Goldenberg, A. S., Martin, K. M., & Rosenberg, L. B. (1998). User performance in a GUI pointing task with a low-cost force-feedback computer mouse. In Proceedings of the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (Vol. 64, pp. 151–155). New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Dynamic Systems and Control Division.
9.
Hayward, V., Astley, O. R., Cruz-Hernandez, M., Grant, D., & Robles-De-La-Torre, G. (2004). Haptic interfaces and devices. Sensor Review, 24, 16–21.
10.
Hess, R. A., & Modjtahedzadeh, A. (1990). A control theoretic model of driver steering behavior. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 10(5), 3–8.
11.
Li, M., & Okamura, A. M. (2003). Recognition of operator motions for real-time assistance using virtual fixtures. In 11th International Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, IEEE Virtual Reality (pp. 125–131). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
12.
Meyer, J. S., Rubinstein, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 763–797.
13.
Mosier, K. L. (2002). Automation and cognition: Maintaining coherence in the electronic cockpit. In E. Salas (Ed.), Advances in human performance and cognitive engineering research: Automation (Vol. 2, pp. 93–122). New York: Elsevier Science.
14.
Park, S. S., Howe, R. D., & Torchiana, D. F. (2001). Virtual fixtures for robot-assisted minimally invasive cardiac surgery. In Fourth International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (pp. 1419–1420). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
15.
Patoglu, V., & Gillespie, R. (in press). Feedback stabilized minimum distance maintenance for convex parametric surfaces. IEEE Transactions on Robotics.
16.
Payandeh, S., & Stanisic, Z. (2002). On application of virtual fixtures as an aid for telemanipulation and training. In Proceedings of the 10th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (pp. 18–23). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
17.
Raney, G. E. (1993). Monitoring changes in cognitive load during reading: An event-related brain potential and reaction time analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 51–69.
18.
Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510–532.
19.
Rosenberg, L. B. (1993). Use of virtual fixtures to enhance telemanipulation with time delay. In Proceedings of the ASME Winter Annual Meeting (Vol. 49, pp. 29–36). New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Dynamic Systems and Control Division.
20.
Sarter, N. B. (2002). Multimodal information presentation in support of human-automation communication and coordination. In E. Salas (Ed.), Advances in human performance and cognitive engineering research: Automation (Vol. 2, pp. 13–36). New York: Elsevier Science.
21.
Sarter, N. B., Woods, D. D., & Billings, C. E. (1997). Automation surprises. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 1926–1943). New York: Wiley.
22.
Sayers, C., & Paul, R. (1994). An operator interface for teleprogramming employing synthetic fixtures. Presence, 3, 309–320.
23.
Schumann, J., Godthelp, J., & Hoekstra, W. (1992). An exploratory simulator study on the use of active control devices in car driving (Tech. Rep. No. IZF 1992 B-2). Soesterberg, Netherlands: TNO Institute for Perception.
24.
Steele, M., & Gillespie, R. B. (2001). Shared control between human and machine: Using a haptic interface to aid in land vehicle guidance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting (pp. 1671–1675). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
25.
Suzuki, K., & Jansson, H. (2003). An analysis of driver's steering behaviour during auditory or haptic warnings for the designing of lane departure warning system. Society of Automotive Engineers of Japan Review, 24, 65–70.
26.
Switkes, J. P., Rossetter, E. J., Coe, I. A., & Gerdes, J. C. (2004). Handwheel force feedback for lanekeeping assistance: Combined dynamics and stability. In Proceedings of AVEC '04, 7th International Symposium on Advanced Vehicle Control (pp. 47–52). Tokyo: Society of Automotive Engineers of Japan.
27.
Tsimhoni, O., & Green, P. A. (2001). Visual demand of driving and the execution of display-intensive in-vehicle tasks. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting (pp. 1586–1590). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
28.
Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (1994). Effects of truncation on reaction time analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 34–80.
29.
Wallace, J. S., & Fisher, D. L. (1998). Sound localization: Information theory analysis. Human Factors, 40, 50–68.
30.
Wickens, C. D., & Liu, L. (1988). Codes and modalities in multiple resources: A success and a qualification. Human Factors, 30, 599–616.
