Formal models are required to analyze the behavior of human-automation systems. This requirement follows from the number and variety of factors, and of interactions among factors, in such systems. The level of complexity of current and planned human-automation systems defies intuitive analysis. Fortunately, recent advances in the theory and practice of modeling have demonstrated the low cost and substantial benefits of formal analyses of real problems in human-automation interaction. This paper briefly notes some of the recent advances in this domain.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CallantineT. J.MitchellC. M.PalmerE. A. (1999). GT-CATS: Tracking operator activities in complex systems. NASA TM 1999-208788, NASA-Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA.
2.
CasnerS. (1991). A task-analytic approach to the automated design of graphic presentations. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 10, 111–151.
3.
CasnerS.LarkinJ. (1989). Cognitive efficiency considerations for good graphic design. Presented at the 11th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
4.
DeganiA.HeymannM. (1999). Pilot-autopilot interaction: A formal perspective. Presented at the 10th International Aviation Psychology Symposium, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
5.
DeganiA. (1999). Pilot error in the 90's: Still alive and kicking. Keynote address presented at the 44th annual Flight Safety Foundation/National Business Aviation Association meeting, Cincinnati, OH.
6.
DeganiA.HeymannM.ShaftoM. (1999). Formal aspects of procedures: The problem of sequential correctness. Presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Houston, TX.
7.
DeganiA.ShaftoM.KirlikA. (1999). Modes in human-machine systems: Review, classification, and application. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9, 125–138.
8.
FearyM.SherryL. (1998). Evaluation of a formal methodology for developing aircraft vertical flight guidance training material. Presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Chicago, IL.
9.
FunkK.LyallB.RileyV. (1996). Perceived human factors problems of flightdeck automation. Phase 1 Final Report, FAA Grant 93-G-039. Washington, DC: FAA.
10.
HarelD.PolitiM. (1998). Modeling reactive systems with statecharts: The Statemate approach. New York; McGraw Hill.
11.
HorrocksI. (1998). Constructing the user interface with statecharts. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
12.
KitajimaM.PolsonP. (1997). LICAI+: A comprehension-based model of learning for display-based human-computer interaction. Presented at CHI1997, the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA.
13.
LaugheryK. R.CorkerK. (1997). Computer modeling and simulation. In SalvendyG. (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics (second edition). New York: Wiley-Interscience.
14.
LevesonN. G.PalmerE. A. (1997). Designing automation to reduce operator errors. Presented at the IEEE Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Orlando, FL.
15.
MackinlayJ. D. (1986). Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 5, 110–141.
16.
MackinlayJ. D.CardS. K.RobertsonG. G. (1990). A semantic analysts of the design space of input devices. Human-Computer Interaction, 5, 145–190.
17.
MilnerR. (1999). Communicating and mobile systems: The Pi-Calculus. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
MilnesB. G. (1992). A specification of the SOAR cognitive architecture in Z. With contributions from G. Pelton, R. Durrenbos, M. Hucka, J. Laird, P. Rosenbloom, and A. Newell. Technical Report No. CMU-CS-92-169. Pittsburgh, PA: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
19.
OrasanuJ. M.ShaftoM. G. (1999). Designing for cognitive task performance. In SageA. P.RouseW. B. (Eds.), Handbook of systems engineering and management. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
20.
PalmerE. A. (1995). “Oops, it didn't arm” — A case study of two automation surprises. Presented at the Eighth International Aviation Psychology Symposium, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
21.
PalmerE. (1999). Murphi busts an altitude: A Murphi analysis of an automation surprise. Presented at the 18th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, St, Louis, MO.
22.
RomahnS.CallantineT.PalmerE. (1999). Model-based design and analysis of ATC-automation interaction. Presented at the Tenth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
23.
RoscoeA. W. (1998). The theory and practice of concurrency. London: Prentice-Hall.
24.
RushbyJ.CrowJ.PalmerE. (1999). An automated method to detect potential mode confusions. Presented at the 18th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, St, Louis, MO.
25.
SarterN. B.WoodsD. D. (1997). Team play with a powerful and independent agent: Operational experiences and automation surprises on the Airbus A-320. Human Factors, 39, 553–569.
26.
SherryL.PolsonP. (1999). Shared models of FMS vertical guidance. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9, 139–153.
27.
SherryL.YouseffiD.HynesC. S. (1995). A formalism for the specification of operationally embedded reactive avionic systems. Honeywell Publication C69-5370-001, Honeywell Air Transport System Division (System Engineering Technology), Phoenix, AZ.
28.
SmithN.PalmerE. A. (1997). An analysis of the relationship between procedure support documentation and task performance. Presented at the Ninth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
29.
Tabachnek-SchijfH. J. M.LeonardoA. M.SimonH. A. (1997). CaMeRa: A computational model of multiple representations. Cognitive Science, 21, 305–350.
30.
WickensC. D.MavorA. S.ParasuramanR.McGeeJ. P. (Eds.). (1998). The future of air traffic control: Human operators and automation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
31.
WienerE. L.ChuteR. D.MosesJ. H. (1999). Transition to glass: Pilot training for high-technology transport aircraft. NASA Contract NCC2-843, CR-1999-208784, NASA-Ames Research Center.
