Who's the boss? Arbitrating control authority between a human driver and automation system

被引：32

作者：

Bhardwaj, Akshay ^{[1
]}

Ghasemi, Amir H. ^{[2
]}

Zheng, Yingshi ^{[1
]}

Febbo, Huckleberry ^{[1
]}

Jayakumar, Paramsothy ^{[3
]}

Ersal, Tulga ^{[1
]}

Stein, Jeffrey L. ^{[1
]}

Gillespie, R. Brent ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Univ Michigan, Dept Mech Engn, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA

[2] Univ N Carolina, Dept Mech Engn & Engn Sci, Charlotte, NC 28223 USA

[3] US Army RDECOM TARDEC, Warren, MI 48397 USA

来源：

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART F-TRAFFIC PSYCHOLOGY AND BEHAVIOUR | 2020年 / 68卷 / 68期

关键词：

Haptic shared control; Human-automation interaction; Intelligent transportation systems; Human Factors; HAPTIC SHARED CONTROL; OBSTACLE AVOIDANCE; SHARING CONTROL; FRAMEWORK; TRANSITIONS; PERFORMANCE; DESIGN;

D O I：

10.1016/j.trf.2019.12.005

中图分类号：

B849 [应用心理学];

学科分类号：

040203 ;

摘要：

Progress toward the fully automated highway will first require that manual and automatic control be successfully combined. Determining a combination that preserves the best performance features of human and automatic control yet allows either driver to cover for the faults of the other is a challenging problem. In this study, we invited 11 participants to drive a simulated vehicle through a course with obstacles to investigate the ability of human-automation teams to cover for human and automation faults. We developed the automation system using model predictive control and implemented three schemes under which the human would share control with the automation. In Autopilot, the human driver initiated a takeover with a button press whereas in Active Safety the automation initiated a takeover when it anticipated an obstacle collision. In Haptic Shared Control the human was free to invoke a transition by activating or relaxing muscles. In addition, we included two baseline conditions in which control was given in whole to either the human or the automation. We compared performance in the five conditions by analyzing obstacle hits and metrics related to driving maneuvers around the obstacles that were avoided. Relative to individual human or automatic driver performance, we found that control sharing reduced obstacle hits under fault conditions but also occasionally resulted in obstacle hits under no-fault conditions. Our findings further indicated that team performance suffered most under Autopilot for automation faults and suffered most under Active Safety for human faults. Haptic Shared Control supported the best overall team performance. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

引用

页码：144 / 160

页数：17

共 46 条

[11]

Billings C.E., 2018, AVIATION AUTOMATION, VVolume 1

[12]

Boessenkool H, 2013, IEEE T HAPTICS, V6, P2, DOI [10.1109/ToH.2012.22, 10.1109/TOH.2012.22]

[13]

Byrd RH, 2006, NONCONVEX OPTIM, V83, P35

[14] Human-Agent Teaming for Multirobot Control: A Review of Human Factors Issues [J].

Chen, Jessie Y. C. ;

Barnes, Michael J. .

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON HUMAN-MACHINE SYSTEMS, 2014, 44 (01) :13-29

[15] Fatigue and automation-induced impairments in simulated driving performance [J].

Desmond, PA ;

Hancock, PA ;

Monette, JL .

HUMAN PERFORMANCE, USER INFORMATION, AND HIGHWAY DESIGN, 1998, (1628) :8-14

[16] Driving Performance After Self-Regulated Control Transitions in Highly Automated Vehicles [J].

Eriksson, Alexander ;

Stanton, Neville A. .

HUMAN FACTORS, 2017, 59 (08) :1233-1248

[17] Shared Steering Control Using Safe Envelopes for Obstacle Avoidance and Vehicle Stability [J].

Erlien, Stephen M. ;

Fujita, Susumu ;

Gerdes, Joseph Christian .

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, 2016, 17 (02) :441-451

[18]

Febbo H, 2017, P AMER CONTR CONF, P5568, DOI 10.23919/ACC.2017.7963821

[19]

Febbo Huckleberry., 2017, NLOptControl

[20] Shared control is the sharp end of cooperation: Towards a common framework of joint action, shared control and human machine cooperation [J].

Flemisch, F. ;

Abbink, D. ;

Itoh, M. ;

Pacaux-Lemoine, M-P. ;

Wessel, G. .

IFAC PAPERSONLINE, 2016, 49 (19) :72-77

← 1 2 3 4 5 →