Abstract
This paper discusses that human-centered automation for traffic safety can vary depending on transportation mode. Quality of human operators and time-criticality are factors characterizing the domain-dependence. The questions asked in this paper are: (1) Does the statement that, “The human must be in command,” have to hold at all times and on every occasion, and in every transportation mode? and (2) What the automation may do when it detected the human’s inappropriate behavior or performance while monitoring the human? Is it allowed only to give some warnings? Or, is it allowed to act autonomously to resolve the detected problem? This paper also argues that human-centered automation must be multi-layered, by taking into account not only enhancement of situation awareness but also trading of authority between humans and machines.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Billings CE (1992) Human-centered aircraft automation: a concept and guidelines (NASA Techn. Mem. 103885). NASA Ames Research Center
Billings CE (1997) Aviation automation—the search for a human-centered approach. LEA
Bresley B, Egilsrud J (1997) Enhanced ground proximity warning system. Boeing Airliner, July–September 1997, 1–13
Cacciabue PC (2004) Guide to applying human factors methods: human error and accident management in safety critical systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York
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
FAA (1992) Takeoff safety training aid
Hollnagel E, Bye A (2000) Principles for modeling function allocation. Int J Hum Comput Stud 52:253–265
Hollnagel E, Woods DD (2005) Joint cognitive systems: foundations of cognitive systems engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton
ICAO (1998) Human factors training manual. Doc 9683-AN/950
Inagaki T (1993) Situation-adaptive degree of automation for system safety. Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE international workshop on robot and human communication, 231–236
Inagaki T (1997) To go no not to go: decision under time-criticality and situation-adaptive autonomy for takeoff safety. Proceedings of the IASTED international conference on applied modelling and simulation, 144–147
Inagaki T (1999) Situation-adaptive autonomy: trading control of authority in human-machine systems. Automation technology and human performance: current research and trends, pp 154–159, LEA
Inagaki T (2000) Situation-adaptive autonomy for time-critical takeoff decisions. Int J Model Simul 20(2):175–180
Inagaki T (2003) Adaptive automation: Sharing and trading of control. In: Hollnagel E (ed) Handbook of cognitive task design. LEA, pp. 147–169
Inagaki T, Kunioka T (2002) Possible automation surprises in the low-speed range adaptive cruise control system. IASTED International Conference on Appl Model Simul, pp 335–340
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. Proceedings of the IEEE SMC conference, 3932–3937
Inagaki T, Stahre J (2004) Human supervision and control in engineering and music: similarities, dissimilarities, and their implications. Proc IEEE 92(4):589–600
Inagaki T, Moray N, Itoh M (1998) Trust self-confidence and authority in human-machine systems. Proceedings of the IFAC man-machine systems, 431–436
Inagaki T, Takae Y, Moray N (1999) Automation and human interface for takeoff safety. Proceedings of the 10th international symposium on aviation psychology, 402–407
ITARDA (2003) Anecdotal report on traffic accident investigations and analyses (in Japanese). ITARDA
Kayano J, Fukuto J, Imazu H, Igarashi K (2004) On a collision avoidance support system for one-person bridge operation. Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on collision and grounding of ships (ICCGS), 81–86
Klein G (1993) A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making. In: Klein G et al (eds) Decision making in action. Ablex, 138–147
Mainichi Daily News (2005) Captain, crewmembers of Israeli ship arrested over fatal collision. (2005, October 24) http://www.mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/p20051024p2a00m0na007000c.html
Orlady HW, Orlady LM (1999) Human factors in multi-crew flight operations. Ashgate
Parasuraman R, Riley V (1997) Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum Factors 39(2):230–253
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
Rouse WB (1988) Adaptive aiding for human/computer control. Hum Factors 30(4):431–443
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
Sarter NB, Woods DD, Billings CE (1997) Automation surprises. In: Salvendy G (ed) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, 2nd edn. Wiley, London, 1926–1943
Scerbo MW (1996) Theoretical perspectives on adaptive automation. In: Parasuraman R, Mouloua M (eds) Automation and human performance. LEA, pp 37–63
Scott WB (1999) Automatic GCAS: “You can’t fly any lower.” Aviat Week Space Technol 150(5):76–79
Sheridan TB (1992) Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control. MIT Press, Cambridge
Sheridan TB (2002) Humans and automation: system design and research issues. Human factors and ergonomics society & Wiley
US Department of Transportation & FAA (2000) Introduction to TCAS II version 7
Wickens CD (1994) Designing for situation awareness and trust in automation. Proceedings of IFAC integrated systems engineering, 77–82
Wickens CD, Lee JD, Liu Y, Becker SEG (2004) An introduction to human factors engineering, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
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, pp.61-85). NASA Ames Research Center
Acknowledgement
This work has been partially supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Government of Japan, with the Special Coordination Funds for Promoting Science and Technology–Research and Development Program for Resolving Critical Issues. Since 2004 the author has been the leader of 3-year project, “Situation and Intention Recognition for Risk Finding and Avoidance: Human-Centered Technology for Transportation Safety.” The research project aims at developing adaptive automation for automobile and its associated technologies, in which authority of control is traded between a driver and automation dynamically depending on the driver’s psychological/physiological state, time-criticality, and risks of the situation in the traffic environment.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Inagaki, T. Design of human–machine interactions in light of domain-dependence of human-centered automation. Cogn Tech Work 8, 161–167 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-006-0034-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-006-0034-z