How to keep drivers engaged while supervising driving automation? A literature survey and categorization of six solution areas

This work aimed to organise recommendations for keeping people engaged during human supervision of driving automation, encouraging a safe and acceptable introduction of automated driving systems. First, heuristic knowledge of human factors, ergonomics, and psychological theory was used to propose solution areas to human supervisory control problems of sustained attention. Driving and non-driving research examples were drawn to substantiate the solution areas. Automotive manufacturers might (1) avoid this supervisory role altogether, (2) reduce it in objective ways or (3) alter its subjective experiences, (4) utilize conditioning learning principles such as with gamification and/or selection/training techniques, (5) support internal driver cognitive processes and mental models and/or (6) leverage externally situated information regarding relations between the driver, the driving task, and the driving environment. Second, a cross-domain literature survey of influential human-automation interaction research was conducted for how to keep engagement/attention in supervisory control. The solution areas (via numeric theme codes) were found to be reliably applied from independent rater categorisations of research recommendations. Areas (5) and (6) were addressed by around 70% or more of the studies, areas (2) and (4) in around 50% of the studies, and areas (3) and (1) in less than around 20% and 5%, respectively. The present contribution offers a guiding organisational framework towards improving human attention while supervising driving automation.submittedVersio

Evaluation of High Density Air Traffic Operations with Automation for Separation Assurance, Weather Avoidance and Schedule Conformance

In this paper we discuss the development and evaluation of our prototype technologies and procedures for far-term air traffic control operations with automation for separation assurance, weather avoidance and schedule conformance. Controller-in-the-loop simulations in the Airspace Operations Laboratory at the NASA Ames Research Center in 2010 have shown very promising results. We found the operations to provide high airspace throughput, excellent efficiency and schedule conformance. The simulation also highlighted areas for improvements: Short-term conflict situations sometimes resulted in separation violations, particularly for transitioning aircraft in complex traffic flows. The combination of heavy metering and growing weather resulted in an increased number of aircraft penetrating convective weather cells. To address these shortcomings technologies and procedures have been improved and the operations are being re-evaluated with the same scenarios. In this paper we will first describe the concept and technologies for automating separation assurance, weather avoidance, and schedule conformance. Second, the results from the 2010 simulation will be reviewed. We report human-systems integration aspects, safety and efficiency results as well as airspace throughput, workload, and operational acceptability. Next, improvements will be discussed that were made to address identified shortcomings. We conclude that, with further refinements, air traffic control operations with ground-based automated separation assurance can routinely provide currently unachievable levels of traffic throughput in the en route airspace

Comparison of Airborne and Ground-Based Function Allocation Concepts for NextGen Using Human-In-The-Loop Simulations

This paper presents an air/ground functional allocation experiment conducted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) using two human-in-the-Loop simulations to compare airborne and ground-based approaches to NextGen separation assurance. The approaches under investigation are two trajectory-based four-dimensional (4D) concepts; one referred to as "airborne trajectory management with self-separation" (airborne) the other as "ground-based automated separation assurance" (ground-based). In coordinated simulations at NASA's Ames and Langley Research Centers, the primary operational participants -controllers for the ground-based concept and pilots for the airborne concept - manage the same traffic scenario using the two different 4D concepts. The common scenarios are anchored in traffic problems that require a significant increase in airspace capacity - on average, double, and in some local areas, close to 250% over current day levels - in order to enable aircraft to safely and efficiently traverse the test airspace. The simulations vary common independent variables such as traffic density, sequencing and scheduling constraints, and timing of trajectory change events. A set of common metrics is collected to enable a direct comparison of relevant results. The simulations will be conducted in spring 2010. If accepted, this paper will be the first publication of the experimental approach and early results. An initial comparison of safety and efficiency as well as operator acceptability under the two concepts is expected

Comparison of Ground-Based and Airborne Function Allocation Concepts for NextGen Using Human-In-The-Loop Simulations

Investigation of function allocation for the Next Generation Air Transportation System is being conducted by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). To provide insight on comparability of different function allocations for separation assurance, two human-in-the-loop simulation experiments were conducted on homogeneous airborne and ground-based approaches to four-dimensional trajectory-based operations, one referred to as ground-based automated separation assurance (groundbased) and the other as airborne trajectory management with self-separation (airborne). In the coordinated simulations at NASA s Ames and Langley Research Centers, controllers for the ground-based concept at Ames and pilots for the airborne concept at Langley managed the same traffic scenarios using the two different concepts. The common scenarios represented a significant increase in airspace demand over current operations. Using common independent variables, the simulations varied traffic density, scheduling constraints, and the timing of trajectory change events. Common metrics were collected to enable a comparison of relevant results. Where comparisons were possible, no substantial differences in performance or operator acceptability were observed. Mean schedule conformance and flight path deviation were considered adequate for both approaches. Conflict detection warning times and resolution times were mostly adequate, but certain conflict situations were detected too late to be resolved in a timely manner. This led to some situations in which safety was compromised and/or workload was rated as being unacceptable in both experiments. Operators acknowledged these issues in their responses and ratings but gave generally positive assessments of the respective concept and operations they experienced. Future studies will evaluate technical improvements and procedural enhancements to achieve the required level of safety and acceptability and will investigate the integration of airborne and ground-based capabilities within the same airspace to leverage the benefits of each concept

How to keep drivers engaged while supervising driving automation? A literature survey and categorization of six solution areas

This work aimed to organise recommendations for keeping people engaged during human supervision of driving automation, encouraging a safe and acceptable introduction of automated driving systems. First, heuristic knowledge of human factors, ergonomics, and psychological theory was used to propose solution areas to human supervisory control problems of sustained attention. Driving and non-driving research examples were drawn to substantiate the solution areas. Automotive manufacturers might (1) avoid this supervisory role altogether, (2) reduce it in objective ways or (3) alter its subjective experiences, (4) utilize conditioning learning principles such as with gamification and/or selection/training techniques, (5) support internal driver cognitive processes and mental models and/or (6) leverage externally situated information regarding relations between the driver, the driving task, and the driving environment. Second, a cross-domain literature survey of influential human-automation interaction research was conducted for how to keep engagement/attention in supervisory control. The solution areas (via numeric theme codes) were found to be reliably applied from independent rater categorisations of research recommendations. Areas (5) and (6) were addressed by around 70% or more of the studies, areas (2) and (4) in around 50% of the studies, and areas (3) and (1) in less than around 20% and 5%, respectively. The present contribution offers a guiding organisational framework towards improving human attention while supervising driving automation.submittedVersio