Haptic shared control was investigated as a human–machine interface that can intuitively share control between drivers and an automatic controller for curve negotiation.
Background:
As long as automation systems are not fully reliable, a role remains for the driver to be vigilant to the system and the environment to catch any automation errors. The conventional binary switches between supervisory and manual control has many known issues, and haptic shared control is a promising alternative.
Method:
A total of 42 respondents of varying age and driving experience participated in a driving experiment in a fixed-base simulator, in which curve negotiation behavior during shared control was compared to during manual control, as well as to three haptic tunings of an automatic controller without driver intervention.
Results:
Under the experimental conditions studied, the main beneficial effect of haptic shared control compared to manual control was that less control activity (16% in steering wheel reversal rate, 15% in standard deviation of steering wheel angle) was needed for realizing an improved safety performance (e.g., 11% in peak lateral error). Full automation removed the need for any human control activity and improved safety performance (e.g., 35% in peak lateral error) but put the human in a supervisory position.
Conclusion:
Haptic shared control kept the driver in the loop, with enhanced performance at reduced control activity, mitigating the known issues that plague full automation.
Application:
Haptic support for vehicular control ultimately seeks to intuitively combine human intelligence and creativity with the benefits of automation systems.
AbbinkD. A. (2006). Neuromuscular analysis of haptic gas pedal feedback during car following (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
2.
AbbinkD. A.BoerE. R.MulderM. (2008). Motivation for continuous haptic gas pedal feedback to support car following. In Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (pp. 283–290). Eindhoven, Netherlands: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
3.
AbbinkD. A.MulderM. (2009). Exploring the dimensions of haptic feedback support in manual control. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 9(1), 1–9.
4.
AbbinkD. A.MulderM. (2010a). Motivation for a neuromuscular basis for haptic shared control. In FrédéricV. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th IFAC/IFIP/IFORS/IEA Symposium on Analysis, Design, and Evaluation of Human-Machine Systems (pp. 299–303). Valenciennes, France.
5.
AbbinkD. A.MulderM. (2010b). Neuromuscular analysis as a guideline in designing shared control. In ZadehM. H. (Ed.), Advances in haptics (pp. 499–516). Vienna, Austria: INTECH.
6.
AbbinkD. A.MulderM.BoerE. R. (in press). Haptic shared control: Smoothly shifting control authority?Cognition, Technology & Work.
7.
AbbinkD. A.MulderM.van der HelmF. C. T.MulderM.BoerE. R. (2011). Measuring neuromuscular control dynamics during car following with continuous haptic feedback. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part B, 41(5), 1239–1249.
8.
BainbridgeL. (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19(6), 775–779.
9.
BrandtT.SattelT.BohmM. (2007). Combining haptic human–machine interaction with predictive path planning for lane-keeping and collision avoidance systems. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (pp. 582–587). Istanbul, Turkey: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
10.
CavalloV.Bran-DeiM.LayaO.NeboitM. (1988). Perception and anticipation in negotiating curves: The role of driving experience. In GaleA. G.FreemanM. H.HaslegraveC. M.SmithP.TaylorS. P. (Eds.), Vision in vehicles II (pp. 365–374). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
11.
Della PennaM.van PaassenM. M.MulderM.AbbinkD. A.MulderM. (2010). Continuous haptic guidance: Obstacle avoidance—A possible solution to the haptic bifurcation problem. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (pp. 1628–1635). Istanbul, Turkey: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
12.
De WinterJ. C. F.DodouD. (2011). Preparing drivers for dangerous situations: A critical reflection on continuous shared control. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (pp. 1050–1056). Anchorage, AK: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
13.
DuncanJ.WilliamsP.BrownI. (1991). Components of driving skill: Experience does not mean expertise. Ergonomics, 34(7), 919–937.
FlemischF.KelschJ.LöperC.SchiebenA.SchindlerJ. (2008). Automation spectrum, inner/outer compatibility and other potentially useful human factors concepts for assistance and automation. In de WaardD.FlemischF. O.LorenzB.OberheidH.BrookhuisK. A. (Eds.), Human factors for assistance and automation (pp. 1–16). Maastricht, Netherlands: Shaker.
16.
ForsythB. A. C.MacLeanK. E. (2006). Predictive haptic guidance: Intelligent user assistance for the control of dynamic tasks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 12(1), 103–113.
17.
GoodrichK.SchutteP.FlemischF.WilliamsR. (2006). Application of the H-Mode, a design and interaction concept for highly automated vehicles, to aircraft. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/AIAA 25th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 1–13). Portland, OR: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
18.
GoodrichM. A.BoerE. R. (2003). Model-based human-centered task automation: A case study in ACC system design. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man, and Cybernetics Part A—Systems and Humans, 33(3), 325–336.
19.
GriffithsP. G.GillespieR. B. (2005). Sharing control between humans and automation using haptic interface: Primary and secondary task performance benefits. Human Factors, 47(3), 574–590.
20.
InagakiT.TakaeY.MorayN. (1999). Decision supported information for takeoff safety in human-centered automation: An experimental investigation of time-fragile characteristics. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (Vol. 1, pp. 1101–1106). Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
21.
JohanssonE.EngströmJ.CherriC.NodariE.ToffettiA.SchindhelmR.GelauC. (2004). Review of existing techniques and metrics for IVIS and ADAS assessment (AIDE IST-1-507674-IP). Brussels, Belgium: Information Society Technologies.
22.
LeeJ. D. (2008). Fifty years of driving safety research. Human Factors, 50, 521–528.
23.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50–80.
24.
LevisonW. H.SimsekO.BittnerA. C.HunnS. J. (2007). Computational techniques used in the driver performance model of the interactive highway safety design model. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1779/2001, 17–25.
25.
MayhewD. R.SimpsonH. M.PakA. (2003). Changes in collision rates among novice drivers during the first months of driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35(5), 683–691.
26.
McGeheeD. V.LeeJ. D.RizzoM.DawsonJ.BatemanK. (2004). Quantitative analysis of steering adaptation on a high performance fixed-base driving simulator. Transportation Research Part F—Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 7(3), 181–196.
27.
McLeanJ. R.HoffmannE. R. (1975). Steering reversals as a measure of driver performance and steering task difficulty. Human Factors, 17, 248–256.
28.
MeratN.JamsonA. H. (2008). How do drivers behave in a highly automated car? In Proceedings of the Fifth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design (pp. 514–521). Big Sky, MT.
29.
MoulouaM.SmitherJ. A. A.HancockP. A.DuleyJ.AdamsR.LatorellaK. (2004). Aging and driving II: Implications of cognitive changes. In VincenziD. A.MoulouaMHancockP. A. (Eds.), Human performance, situation awareness and automation: Current research and trends (pp. 320–323). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30.
MuggeW.AbbinkD. A.SchoutenA. C.DewaldJ. P. A.van der HelmF. C. T. (2010). A rigorous model of reflex function indicates that position and force feedback are flexibly tuned to position and force tasks. Experimental Brain Research, 200, 325–340.
31.
MulderM.AbbinkD. A. (2010). Sharing control with elderly drivers: Haptic guidance during curve negotiation. In Proceedings of the IFAC Conference (pp. 310–315). Valenciennes, France: International Federation of Automatic Control.
32.
MulderM.AbbinkD. A. (2011). Correct and faulty driver support from shared haptic control during evasive maneuvers. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (pp. 1057–1062). Anchorage, AK: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
33.
MulderM.AbbinkD. A.BoerE. R. (2008). The effect of haptic guidance on curve negotiation behavior of young, experienced drivers. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (pp. 804–809). Singapore: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
34.
NakayamaO.FutamiT.NakamuraT.BoerE. R. (1999, March). Development of steering entropy method for evaluating driver workload (SAE Technical Paper Series 1999-01-0892). Presented at the International Congress and Exposition, Detroit, MI.
35.
NormanD. A. (1990). The “problem” with automation: Inappropriate feedback and interaction, not “over-automation.”Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London—Series B, Biological Sciences, 327(1241), 585–593.
36.
ParasuramanR.ManzeyD. H. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors, 52, 381–410.
37.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.
38.
PritchettA. R. (2001). Reviewing the roles of cockpit alerting systems. Human Factors in Aerospace Safety, 1(1), 5–38.
39.
RossetterE. J.GerdesJ. C. (2006). Lyapunov based performance guarantees for the potential field lane-keeping assistance system. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 128(3), 510–522.
40.
SandersM. S. (1981). Peak and sustained isometric forces applied to a truck steering wheel. Human Factors, 23, 655–660.
41.
SarterN. B.WoodsD. D. (1995). How in the world did we ever get into that mode? Mode error and awareness in supervisory control. Human Factors, 37, 5–19.
42.
SeppeltB. D.LeeJ. D. (2007). Making adaptive cruise control (ACC) limits visible. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(3), 192–205.
43.
SmitherJ. A. A.MoulouaM.HancockP. A.DuleyJ.AdamsR.LatorellaK. (2004). Aging and driving part I: Implications of perceptual and physical changes. In VincenziD. A.MoulouaM.HancockP. A. (Eds.), Human performance, situation awareness and automation: Current research and trends (pp. 315–319). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
StantonN. A.YoungM. S. (1998). Vehicle automation and driving performance. Ergonomics, 41(7), 1014–1028.
45.
ThomasJ. A.WaltonD. (2007). Measuring perceived risk: Self-reported and actual hand positions of SUV and car drivers. Transportation Research Part F—Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 10(3), 201–207.
46.
ThrunS.MontemerloM.DahlkampH.StavensD.AronA.DiebelJ.MahoneyP. (2006). Stanley: The robot that won the DARPA Grand Challenge. Journal of Field Robotics, 23(9), 661–692.
47.
TsoiK. K.MulderM.AbbinkD. A. (2010). Balancing safety and support: Changing lanes with a haptic lane-keeping support system. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (pp. 1236–1243). Istanbul, Turkey: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
48.
van PaassenM. M. (2010). Heidegger versus Carthesian dualism, or where is my hammer? In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (pp. 1684–1688). Istanbul, Turkey: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
49.
Van WinsumW.BrookhuisK. A.de WaardD. (2000). A comparison of different ways to approximate time-to-line crossing (TLC) during car driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32(1), 47–56.
50.
Van WinsumW.GodthelpH. (1996). Speed choice and steering behavior in curve driving. Human Factors, 38, 434–441.
51.
WalkerG. H.StantonN. A.YoungM. S. (2009). Where is computing driving cars?International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13(2), 203–229.
52.
WaltonD.ThomasJ. A. (2005). Naturalistic observations of driver hand positions. Transportation Research Part F—Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8(3), 229–238.
