Abstract
AbstractLack of support for handling a reduction of autonomy in a highly autonomous automation may lead to a stressful situation for a human when forced to take over. We present a design approach, the Reduced Autonomy Workspace, to address this. The starting point is that the human and the automation work together in parallel control processes, but at different levels of autonomy cognitive control, such as setting goals or implementing plans, which is different from levels of automation. When autonomy is reduced, the automation should consult the human by providing information that has been aligned to the level at which the human is working, and the timing of the provision should be adapted to suit the human’s work situation. This is made possible by allowing the automation to monitor the human in a separate process. The combination of these processes, information level alignment and timing of the presentation, are the key characteristics of the Reduced Autonomy Workspace. The Reduced Autonomy Workspace consists of four phases: Identification of the need; evaluation of whether, and, if so, when, and how to present information; perception and response by the human; implementation of a solution by the automation. The timing of the information presentation should be adapted in real-time to provide flexibility, while the level of the information provided should be tuned offline and kept constant to provide predictability. Use of the Reduced Autonomy Workspace can reduce the risk for surprising, stressful hand-over situations, and the need to monitor the automation to avoid them.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Computer Science Applications,Human-Computer Interaction,Philosophy
Reference36 articles.
1. Albus J, Antsaklis PJ, Meystel A, Passino K, Samad T (1998) Autonomy in engineering systems: what is it and why it is important? Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE ISIC/CIRA/ISAS Joint Conference: 520–521
2. Bainbridge L (1983) Ironies of automation. Automatica. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-1098(83)90046-8
3. Baxter G, Rooksby J, Wang Y, Khajeh-Hosseini A (2012) The ironies of automation … still going strong at 30? ECCE ’12: Proceedings of the 30th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics: 65–71
4. Bradshaw JM, Hoffman RR, Johnson M, Woods DD (2013) The seven deadly myths of “autonomous systems.” IEEE Intell Syst 28(3):54–61. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2013.70
5. Christoffersen K, Woods DD (2002) How to make automated systems team players. Adv Hum Perform Cogn Eng Res 2:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3601(02)02003-9
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献