Human factors in robotic assisted surgery: Lessons from studies ‘in the Wild’

This article reviews studies conducted "in the wild" that explore the "ironies of automation" in Robotic Assisted Surgery (RAS). Workload may be reduced for the surgeon, but increased for other team members, with postural stress relocated rather than reduced, and the introduction of a range of new challenges, for example, in the need to control multiple arms, with multiple instruments; and the increased demands of being physically separated from the team. Workflow disruptions do not appear to be more frequent, the prevalence of equipment and training disruptions differs from other types of surgeries. A consistent observation is that communication and coordination problems are relatively frequent, suggesting that specific verbal and non-verbal cues may need to be trained. RAS also changes the necessary size of the operating room instrument cleaning processes. These studies demonstrate the value of clinically-based human factors engineers working alongside surgical teams to improve the delivery of RAS

An Analysis of Displays for Probabilistic Robotic Mission Verification Results

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017.Proceedings of the AHFE 2016 International Conference on Human Factors in Robots and Unmanned Systems, July 27-31, 2016, Walt Disney World®, Florida.DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-41959-6An approach for the verification of autonomous behavior-based robotic missions has been developed in a collaborative effort between Fordham University and Georgia Tech. This paper addresses the step after verification, how to present this information to users. The verification of robotic missions is inherently probabilistic, opening the possibility of misinterpretation by operators. A human study was performed to test three different displays (numeric, graphic, and symbolic) for summarizing the verification results. The displays varied by format and specificity. Participants made decisions about high-risk robotic missions using a prototype interface. Consistent with previous work, the type of display had no effect. The displays did not reduce the time participants took compared to a control group with no summary, but did improve the accuracy of their decisions. Participants showed a strong preference for more specific data, heavily using the full verification results. Based on these results, a different display paradigm is suggested

Sulfaattisellutehtaan energiataseiden teknillistaloudellinen tarkastelu

Human-automation interaction in complex systems iscommon, yet design for this interaction is often conductedwithout explicit consideration of the role of the humanoperator. Fortunately, there are a number of modelingframeworks proposed for supporting this design activity.However, the frameworks are often adapted from otherpurposes, usually applied to a limited range of problems,sometimes not fully described in the open literature, and rarelycritically reviewed in a manner acceptable to proponents andcritics alike. The present paper introduces a panel sessionwherein these proponents (and reportedly one or two critics)can engage one another on several agreed questions about suchframeworks. The goal is to aid non-aligned practitioners inchoosing between alternative frameworks for their human-automationinteraction design challenges