Supervision of Autonomous Vehicles: Mutual Modeling and Interaction Management

  • Gilles Coppin
  • François Legras
  • Sylvie Saget
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5639)

Abstract

As the capabilities of Unmanned Vehicle Systems increase, the tasks of their operators become more and more complex and diverse. Accordingly, the interfaces of these UVSs must become smarter in order to support these tasks and assist the operator. In this paper, we discuss how an Operator Support System can leverage dynamic interaction strategies to modulate the workload of the operator and how it could impact trust in automation.

Keywords

unmanned vehicles systems interaction dialogue trust in automation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Mouloua, M., Gilson, R., Kring, J., Hancock, P.A.: Workload, situation awareness, and teaming issues for UAV/UCAV operations. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, vol. 45, pp. 162–165 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnson, C.: Inverting the control ratio: Human control of large, autonomous teams. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2003 Workshop on Humans and Multi-Agent Systems (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Legras, F., Coppin, G.: Autonomy spectrum for a multiple UAVs system. In: COGIS 2007 - COgnitive systems with Interactive Sensors (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grice, H.P.: Logic and conversation, Syntax and Semantics, Speech Acts. Syntax and Semantics, Speech Acts 3, 43–58 (1975)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Searle, J.R.: Speech acts: an essay in philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clark, H.H.: Using language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bangerter, A., Clark, H.H.: Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science 27, 195–225 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cherubini, M., van der Pol, J.: Grounding is not shared understanding: Distinguishing grounding at an utterance and knowledge level. In: CONTEXT 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saget, S., Guyomard, M.: Goal-oriented dialog as a subordinated activity involving collective acceptance. In: Proceedings of Brandial 2006, University of Potsdam, Germany, pp. 131–138 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lemon, O., Gruenstein, A., Cavedon, L., Peters, S.: Collaborative dialogue for controlling autonomous systems. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cai, G., Wang, H., MacEachren, A.: Communicating Vague Spatial Concepts in Human-GIS Interactions: A Collaborative Dialogue Approach. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Spatial Information Theory 2003, pp. 304–319 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bard, E.G., Anderson, A.H., Chen, Y., Nicholson, H., Havard, C.: Let’s you do that: Enquiries into the cognitiveburdens of dialogue. In: Proceedings of DIALOR 2005 Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, vol. 46, pp. 50–80 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klein, G., Feltovich, P.J., Bradshaw, J.M., Woods, D.D.: Common ground and coordination in joint activity. In: Rouse, W.R., Boff, K.B. (eds.) Organizational simulation. Wiley, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee, J.D., Moray, N.: Trust, self-confidence, and operator’s adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 40, 153–184 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gilles Coppin
    • 1
    • 2
  • François Legras
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sylvie Saget
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut Télécom; Télécom Bretagne; UMR CNRS 3192 Lab-STICCFrance
  2. 2.Université européenne de BretagneFrance

Personalised recommendations