Levels of Automation in the Brave New World: Adaptive Autonomy,Virtual Presence and Swarms-Oh My!

Abstract

The concept of Levels of Automation (LOAs) as a categorization of distinct combinations of human-automation relationships arrayed along, usually, a spectrum of possibilities has a long and fruitful tradition in Human Factors. Nevertheless, if a proliferation of novel LOA schemes and uses is any evidence, there is some reason to perceive unrest and dissatisfaction with comparatively simple LOA schemes that have been proposed in the past. This panel will review concepts and uses of Levels of Automation schemas and discuss their relative strengths and weaknesses. A central theme will be whether novel automation capabilities (and, therefore, novel human-machine interaction opportunities) demand revisions to LOA concepts or whether we can (or have) defined a scheme that defines the full space of possible interaction types.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bright

(1955). Does automation raise skill requirements? Harvard Business Review, 36, 85–98.

Clough

(2002). Metrics, Schmetrics! How The Heck Do You Determine A UAV's Autonomy Anyway? In Messina

E.R.

Meystel

A.M.

(Eds.). Proceedings of the PerMIS Workshop: Measuring the Performance and Intelligence of Systems. NIST Special Publication 990. August 13-15, 2002.

Goldman

Miller

Funk

Meisner

(2005). Optimizing to Satisfice: Using Optimization to Guide Users. In Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society's International Specialists Meeting on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. January 18-20; Chandler, AZ.

Lorenz

Di Nocera

Rottger

Parasuraman

(2002). Automated fault management in a simulated space flight micro-world Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 73 886–897.

Miller

Pelican

Goldman

(2000). “Tasking” interfaces for flexible interaction with automation: Keeping the operator in control. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Interaction with Complex Systems. Urbana-Champaign, IL.

Miller

Parasuraman

(2003). Beyond Levels of Automation: An Architecture for More Flexible Human-Automation Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, October 13-17; Denver, CO.

Miller

Funk

Goldman

(2004). Delegation Approaches to Multiple Unmanned Vehicle Control. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Human Factors of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Manning the Unmanned. Chandler, AZ; May 24-25.

Parasuraman

Sheridan

Wickens

(2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.-Part A: Systems and Humans, 30, 286–297.

Parasuraman

Galster

Squire

Furukawa

Miller

(2005). A flexible delegation-type interface enhances system performance in human supervision of multiple robots: Empirical studies with RoboFlag. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans, Accepted.

10.

Proud

R.W.

Hart

J.J.

Mrozinski

R.B.

(2003) “Methods for Determining the Level of Autonomy to Design into a Human Spaceflight Vehicle: A Function Specific Approach,” Proceedings of the NIST Workshop on Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems, September.

11.

Sheridan

Verplank

(1978). Human and Computer control of undersea teleoperators. MIT Man-Machine Systems Laboratory, Cambridge, MA. Technical Report.

12.

Sheridan

(1987). Supervisory control In Salvendy

(Ed.). Handbook of human factors (pp.1244–1268). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

13.

Taylor

(2001). Cognitive Cockpit Systems Engineering: Pilot Authorisation and Control of Tasks. In Onken

(Ed.). Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Cognitive Science Approaches to Process Control. Sept. 24-26; Neubiberg, Germany.

14.

Wickens

Mavor

Parasuraman

McGee

(1998). The future of air traffic control: Human operators and automation. Washington DC: National Academy Press.