Skip to main content
Book cover

Cybernics pp 235–265Cite as

Human–Machine Coagency for Collaborative Control

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This chapter discusses some of the issues that are at the center of designing human–machine coagency where humans and smart machines collaborate and cooperate sensibly in a situation-adaptive manner. The first is the issue of authority and responsibility. It is argued that the machine may be given authority to improve safety and to alleviate possible damage to the human–machine system, even in a framework of human-centered automation. The second is the issue of the human operator’s overtrust in and overreliance on automation, where it is argued that possibilities and types of overtrust and overreliance may vary depending on the characteristics of the automated system. The importance of the design of a human–machine interface and human–machine interactions is included in the discussion.

Keywords

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Sheridan TB (1992) Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bainbridge L (1983) Ironies in automation. Automatica 19(3):775–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rasmussen J, Goodstein LP (1987) Decision support in supervisory control of high-risk industrial systems. Automatica 23(5):663–671

    Google Scholar 

  4. Woods D (1989) The effects of automation on human’s role: experience from non-aviation industries. In: Norman S, Orlady H (eds) Flight deck automation: promises and realities, NASA CR-10036. NASA-Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, pp 61–85

    Google Scholar 

  5. Billings CE (1997) Aviation automation—the search for a human-centered approach. LEA, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sheridan TB (2002) Humans and automation: system design and research issues. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society & Wiley, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  7. Endsley MR (1995) Towards a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors 37(1):32–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wickens CD (1994) Designing for situation awareness and trust in automation. In: Proceedings of IFAC integrated systems engineering, Baden-Baden, Germany, pp 77–82

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sarter NB, Woods DD, Billings CE (1997) Automation surprises. In: Salvendy G (ed) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, pp 1926–1943

    Google Scholar 

  10. Parasuraman R, Molloy R, Singh IL (1993) Performance consequences of automation-induced ‘complacency. Int J Aviat Psychol 3(1):1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Moray N, Inagaki T (2000) Attention and complacency. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 1(4):354–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ferrell WR, Sheridan TB (1967) Supervisory control of remote manipulation. IEEE Spectr 4(10):81–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sarter NB, Woods DD (1995) How in the world did we ever get into that mode? Mode error and awareness in supervisory control. Hum Factors 37(1):5–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dornheim M (1995) Dramatic incidents highlight mode problems in cockpits. Aviat Week Space Technol 142(5):57–59

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rouse WB (1991) Design for success: a human centered approach to designing successful products and systems. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fitts PM (ed) (1951) Human engineering for an effective air-navigation and traffic-control system. The Ohio State University Research Foundation, Columbus

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hancock PA, Scallen SF (1998) Allocating functions in human-machine systems. In: Hoffman RR et al (eds) Viewing psychology as a whole. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 509–539

    Google Scholar 

  18. Price HE (1985) The allocation of function in systems. Hum Factors 27(1):33–45

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sharit J (1997) Allocation of functions. In: Salvendy G (ed) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, pp 301–339

    Google Scholar 

  20. Grote G, Ryser C, Wafler T, Windischer A, Weik S (2000) KOMPASS: a method for complementary function allocation in automated work systems. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 52:267–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rouse WB (1988) Adaptive aiding for human/computer control. Hum Factors 30(4):431–443

    Google Scholar 

  22. Parasuraman R, Bhari T, Deaton JE, Morrison JG, Barnes M (1992) Theory and design of adaptive automation in aviation systems, Progress report no NAWCADWAR-92033-60. Naval Air Development Center Aircraft Division, Warminster, PA

    Google Scholar 

  23. Scerbo MW (1996) Theoretical perspectives on adaptive automation. In: Parasuraman R, Mouloua M (eds) Automation and human performance. LEA, Mahwah, pp 37–63

    Google Scholar 

  24. Moray N, Inagaki T, Itoh M (2000) Adaptive automation, trust, and self-confidence in fault management of time-critical tasks. J Exp Psychol Appl 6(1):44–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Scallen SF, Hancock PA (2001) Implementing adaptive function allocation. Int J Aviat Psychol 11(2):197–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Scerbo MW, Freeman FG, Mikulka PJ, Parasuraman R, Di Nocero F, Prinzel III LJ (2001) The efficacy of psychophysiological measures for implementing adaptive technology. NASA/TP-2001-211018

    Google Scholar 

  27. Inagaki T (2003) Adaptive automation: sharing and trading of control. In: Hollnagel E (ed) Handbook of cognitive task design. LEA, Mahwah, pp 147–169

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Parasuraman R, Sheridan TB, Wickens CD (2000) A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 30(3):286–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. FAA (2011) Introduction to TCAS II version 7.1 booklet HQ-111358. Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bresley B, Egilsrud J (1997) Enhanced ground proximity warning system. Boeing Airliner, pp 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  31. Billings CE (1992) Human-centered aircraft automation: a concept and guidelines, vol 103885, NASA technical memorandum. NASA-Ames Research Center, Moffett Field

    Google Scholar 

  32. Cacciabue PC (2004) Guide to applying human factors methods: human error and accident management in safety critical systems. Springer, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Wickens CD, Lee JD, Liu Y, Becker SEG (2004) An introduction to human factors engineering, 2nd edn. Prentics-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  34. Orlady HW, Orlady LM (1999) Human factors in multi-crew flight operations. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  35. Endsley MR, Kiris EO (1995) The out-of-the-loop performance problem and the level of control in automation. Hum Factors 37(2):3181–3194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Parasuraman R, Riley V (1997) Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum Factors 39(2):230–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Inagaki T, Stahre J (2004) Human supervision and control in engineering and music: similarities, dissimilarities, and their implications. Proc IEEE 92(4):589–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hollnagel E, Woods DD (2005) Joint cognitive systems: foundations of cognitive systems engineering. CRC Press, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Inagaki T (2006) Design of human-machine interactions in light of domain-dependence of human-centered automation. Cognit Technol Work 8(3):161–167

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  40. Inagaki T, Kunioka T (2002) Possible automation surprises in the low-speed range adaptive cruise control system. In: IASTED international conference on applied modelling and simulation, Cambridge, MA, pp 335–340

    Google Scholar 

  41. ITARDA (2003) Anecdotal report on traffic accident investigations and analyses (in Japanese). ITARDA, Tokyo, Japan

    Google Scholar 

  42. Scott WB (1999) Automatic GCAS: “you can’t fly any lower”. Aviat Week Space Technol 150(5):76–79

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kingsley-Jones M, Warnick G (2006) Airbus studies emergency traffic avoidance system to act without pilots. Flight International 22 Mar 2006

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kaminski-Morrow D (2009) Airbus A350 could be equipped with automatic emergency descent system. Flight International 15 Aug 2009

    Google Scholar 

  45. Inagaki T, Sheridan TB (2012) Authority and responsibility in human-machine systems: probability theoretic validation of machine-initiated trading of authority. Cognit Technol Work 14(1):29–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Inagaki T, Itoh M, Nagai Y (2006) Efficacy and acceptance of driver support under possible mismatches between driver’s intent and traffic conditions. In: Proceedings of HFES 50th annual meeting, San Francisco, CA, pp 280–283

    Google Scholar 

  47. Inagaki T, Itoh M, Nagai Y (2007a) Driver support functions under resource-limited situations. In: Proceedings of HFES 51st annual meeting, Baltimore, MD, pp 176–180

    Google Scholar 

  48. Inagaki T, Itoh M, Nagai Y (2007) Support by warning or by action: which is appropriate under mismatches between driver intent and traffic conditions? IEICE Trans Fundam E90-A(11):264–272

    Google Scholar 

  49. Inagaki T (2011) To what extent may assistance systems correct and prevent ‘erroneous’ behaviour of the driver? In: Cacciabue PC et al (eds) Human modelling in assisted transportation. Springer, Milan, pp 33–41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  50. Lee JD, Moray N (1992) Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics 35(10):1243–1270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mosier K, Skitka LJ, Heers S, Burdick M (1998) Automation bias: decision making and performance in high-tech cockpits. Int J Aviat Psychol 8:47–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Meyer J (2001) Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Hum Factors 43(4):563–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sheridan TB, Parasuraman R (2005) Human-automation interaction. In: Nickerson RS (ed) Reviews of human factors and ergonomics, vol 1. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, pp 89–129

    Google Scholar 

  54. Inagaki T (2010) Traffic systems as joint cognitive systems: issues to be solved for realizing human-technology coagency. Cognit Technol Work 12(2):153–162

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  55. Ladkin PB (2002) ACAS and the south German midair. Technical note RVS-Occ-02-02. http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Reports/

  56. Learmount D (2002) Questions hang over collision. Flight International, 8

    Google Scholar 

  57. Inagaki T, Moray N, Itoh M (1998) Trust self-confidence and authority in human-machine systems. In: Proceedings of IFAC man-machine systems, Kyoto, Japan, pp 431–436

    Google Scholar 

  58. Inagaki T (1999) Situation-adaptive autonomy: trading control of authority in human-machine systems. In: Scerbo MW, Mouloua M (eds) Automation technology and human performance: current research and trends. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 154–159

    Google Scholar 

  59. Inagaki T (2000a) Situation-adaptive autonomy for time-critical takeoff decisions. Int J Model Simul 20(2):175–180

    Google Scholar 

  60. Inagaki T, Takae Y, Moray N (1999) Automation and human interface for takeoff safety. In: Proceedings of tenth international symposium on aviation psychology, Columbus, OH, pp 402–407

    Google Scholar 

  61. Inagaki T, Furukawa H (2004) Computer simulation for the design of authority in the adaptive cruise control systems under possibility of driver’s over-trust in automation. In: Proceedings of IEEE SMC conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp 3932–3937

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hollnagel E (2006) A function-centered approach to joint driver-vehicle system design. Cognit Technol Work 8:169–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Hollnagel E (1999) From function allocation to function congruence. In: Dekker SWA, Hollnagel E (eds) Coping with computers in the cockpit. Ashgate, Brookfield, pp 29–53

    Google Scholar 

  64. Inagaki T (1993) Situation-adaptive degree of automation for system safety. In: Proceedings of 2nd IEEE international workshop on robot and human communication, Tokyo, Japan, pp 231–236

    Google Scholar 

  65. Inagaki T (2000b) Situation-adaptive autonomy: dynamic trading of authority between human and automation. In: Proceedings of HFES 44th annual meeting, San Diego, CA, pp 3.13–3.16

    Google Scholar 

  66. Jordan N (1963) Allocation of functions between man and machines in automated systems. J Applied Psychology 47(3):161–165

    Google Scholar 

  67. Hollnagel E (2003) Prolegomenon to cognitive task design. In: Hollnagel E (ed) Handbook of cognitive task design. LEA, Mahwah, pp 3–15

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Toshiyuki Inagaki .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Japan

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Inagaki, T. (2014). Human–Machine Coagency for Collaborative Control. In: Sankai, Y., Suzuki, K., Hasegawa, Y. (eds) Cybernics. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54159-2_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54159-2_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Tokyo

  • Print ISBN: 978-4-431-54158-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-4-431-54159-2

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics