SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “human-automation interaction”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2006

Application of the H-Mode, a Design and Interaction Concept for Highly Automated Vehicles, to Aircraft

Driven by increased safety, efficiency, and airspace capacity, automation is playing an increasing role in aircraft operations. As aircraft become increasingly able to autonomously respond to a range of situations with performance surpassing human operators, we are compelled to look for new methods that help us understand their use and guide their design using new forms of automation and interaction. We propose a novel design metaphor to aid the conceptualization, design, and operation of highly-automated aircraft. Design metaphors transfer meaning from common experiences to less familiar applications or functions. A notable example is the "Desktop metaphor" for manipulating files on a computer. This paper describes a metaphor for highly automated vehicles known as the H-metaphor and a specific embodiment of the metaphor known as the H-mode as applied to aircraft. The fundamentals of the H-metaphor are reviewed followed by an overview of an exploratory usability study investigating human-automation interaction issues for a simple H-mode implementation. The envisioned application of the H-mode concept to aircraft is then described as are two planned evaluations.

Goodrich, Kenneth H.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Physiological Self-Regulation and Adaptive Automation

Adaptive automation has been proposed as a solution to current problems of human-automation interaction. Past research has shown the potential of this advanced form of automation to enhance pilot engagement and lower cognitive workload. However, there have been concerns voiced regarding issues, such as automation surprises, associated with the use of adaptive automation. This study examined the use of psychophysiological self-regulation training with adaptive automation that may help pilots deal with these problems through the enhancement of cognitive resource management skills. Eighteen participants were assigned to 3 groups (self-regulation training, false feedback, and control) and performed resource management, monitoring, and tracking tasks from the Multiple Attribute Task Battery. The tracking task was cycled between 3 levels of task difficulty (automatic, adaptive aiding, manual) on the basis of the electroencephalogram-derived engagement index. The other two tasks remained in automatic mode that had a single automation failure. Those participants who had received self-regulation training performed significantly better and reported lower National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index scores than participants in the false feedback and control groups. The theoretical and practical implications of these results for adaptive automation are discussed.

Prinzell, Lawrence J.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Constraint and Flight Rule Management for Space Mission Operations

The exploration of space is one of the most fascinating domains to study from a human factors perspective. Like other complex work domains such as aviation (Pritchett and Kim, 2008), air traffic management (Durso and Manning, 2008), health care (Morrow, North, and Wickens, 2006), homeland security (Cooke and Winner, 2008), and vehicle control (Lee, 2006), space exploration is a large-scale sociotechnical work domain characterized by complexity, dynamism, uncertainty, and risk in real-time operational contexts (Perrow, 1999; Woods et al, 1994). Nearly the entire gamut of human factors issues - for example, human-automation interaction (Sheridan and Parasuraman, 2006), telerobotics, display and control design (Smith, Bennett, and Stone, 2006), usability, anthropometry (Chaffin, 2008), biomechanics (Marras and Radwin, 2006), safety engineering, emergency operations, maintenance human factors, situation awareness (Tenney and Pew, 2006), crew resource management (Salas et al., 2006), methods for cognitive work analysis (Bisantz and Roth, 2008) and the like -- are applicable to astronauts, mission control, operational medicine, Space Shuttle manufacturing and assembly operations, and space suit designers as they are in other work domains (e.g., Bloomberg, 2003; Bos et al, 2006; Brooks and Ince, 1992; Casler and Cook, 1999; Jones, 1994; McCurdy et al, 2006; Neerincx et aI., 2006; Olofinboba and Dorneich, 2005; Patterson, Watts-Perotti and Woods, 1999; Patterson and Woods, 2001; Seagull et ai, 2007; Sierhuis, Clancey and Sims, 2002). The human exploration of space also has unique challenges of particular interest to human factors research and practice. This chapter provides an overview of those issues and reports on some of the latest research results as well as the latest challenges still facing the field.

Barreiro, J.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Human Factors in Space Exploration

The exploration of space is one of the most fascinating domains to study from a human factors perspective. Like other complex work domains such as aviation (Pritchett and Kim, 2008), air traffic management (Durso and Manning, 2008), health care (Morrow, North, and Wickens, 2006), homeland security (Cooke and Winner, 2008), and vehicle control (Lee, 2006), space exploration is a large-scale sociotechnical work domain characterized by complexity, dynamism, uncertainty, and risk in real-time operational contexts (Perrow, 1999; Woods et ai, 1994). Nearly the entire gamut of human factors issues - for example, human-automation interaction (Sheridan and Parasuraman, 2006), telerobotics, display and control design (Smith, Bennett, and Stone, 2006), usability, anthropometry (Chaffin, 2008), biomechanics (Marras and Radwin, 2006), safety engineering, emergency operations, maintenance human factors, situation awareness (Tenney and Pew, 2006), crew resource management (Salas et aI., 2006), methods for cognitive work analysis (Bisantz and Roth, 2008) and the like -- are applicable to astronauts, mission control, operational medicine, Space Shuttle manufacturing and assembly operations, and space suit designers as they are in other work domains (e.g., Bloomberg, 2003; Bos et al, 2006; Brooks and Ince, 1992; Casler and Cook, 1999; Jones, 1994; McCurdy et ai, 2006; Neerincx et aI., 2006; Olofinboba and Dorneich, 2005; Patterson, Watts-Perotti and Woods, 1999; Patterson and Woods, 2001; Seagull et ai, 2007; Sierhuis, Clancey and Sims, 2002). The human exploration of space also has unique challenges of particular interest to human factors research and practice. This chapter provides an overview of those issues and reports on sorne of the latest research results as well as the latest challenges still facing the field.

FROM↗

NASA NTRS2013

Flight-Deck Strategies and Outcomes When Flying Schedule-Matching Descents

Recent studies at NASA Ames Research Center have investigated the development and use of ground-based (air traffic controller) tools to manage and schedule air traffic in future terminal airspace. An exploratory study was undertaken to investigate the impacts that such tools (and concepts) could have on the flight-deck. Ten Boeing 747-400 crews flew eight optimized profile descents in the Los Angeles terminal airspace, while receiving scripted current day and futuristic speed clearances, to ascertain their ability to fly schedulematching descents without prior training. Although the study was exploratory in nature, four variables were manipulated: route constraints, winds, speed changes, and clearance phraseology. Despite flying the same scenarios with the same events and timing, there were significant differences in the time it took crews to fly the approaches. This variation is the product of a number of factors but highlights potential difficulties for scheduling tools that would have to accommodate this amount of natural variation in descent times. The focus of this paper is the examination of the crews' aircraft management strategies and outcomes. This includes potentially problematic human-automation interaction issues that may negatively impact arrival times, speed and altitude constraint compliance, and energy management efficiency.

Flight Management System↗

NASA NTRS2015

Analysis of Aviation Safety Reporting System Incident Data Associated with the Technical Challenges of the System-Wide Safety and Assurance Technologies Project

The Aviation Safety Program (AvSP) System-Wide Safety and Assurance Technologies (SSAT) Project asked the AvSP Systems and Portfolio Analysis Team to identify SSAT-related trends. SSAT had four technical challenges: advance safety assurance to enable deployment of NextGen systems; automated discovery of precursors to aviation safety incidents; increasing safety of human-automation interaction by incorporating human performance, and prognostic algorithm design for safety assurance. This report reviews incident data from the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) for system-component-failure- or-malfunction- (SCFM-) related and human-factor-related incidents for commercial or cargo air carriers (Part 121), commuter airlines (Part 135), and general aviation (Part 91). The data was analyzed by Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) part, phase of flight, SCFM category, human factor category, and a variety of anomalies and results. There were 38 894 SCFM-related incidents and 83 478 human-factorrelated incidents analyzed between January 1993 and April 2011.

Withrow, Colleen A.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Human Factors and Habitability Challenges for Mars Missions

As NASA is planning to send humans deeper into space than ever before, adequate crew health and performance will be critical for mission success. Within the NASA Human Research Program (HRP), the Space Human Factors and Habitability (SHFH) team is responsible for characterizing the risks associated with human capabilities and limitations with respect to long-duration spaceflight, and for providing mitigations (e.g., guidelines, technologies, and tools) to promote safe, reliable and productive missions. SHFH research includes three domains: Advanced Environmental Health (AEH), Advanced Food Technology (AFT), and Space Human Factors Engineering (SHFE). The AEH portfolio focuses on understanding the risk of microbial contamination of the spacecraft and on the development of standards for exposure to potential toxins such as chemicals, bacteria, fungus, and lunar/Martian dust. The two risks that the environmental health project focuses on are adverse health effects due to changes in host-microbe interactions, and risks associated with exposure to dust in planetary surface habitats. This portfolio also proposes countermeasures to these risks by making recommendations that relate to requirements for environmental quality, foods, and crew health on spacecraft and space missions. The AFT portfolio focuses on reducing the mass, volume, and waste of the entire integrated food system to be used in exploration missions, and investigating processing methods to extend the shelf life of food items up to five years, while assuring that exploration crews will have nutritious and palatable foods. The portfolio also delivers improvements in both the food itself and the technologies for storing and preparing it. SHFE sponsors research to establish human factors and habitability standards and guidelines in five risk areas, and provides improved design concepts for advanced crew interfaces and habitability systems. These risk areas include: Incompatible vehicle/habitat design, inadequate human-computer interaction, inadequate critical task design, inadequate human-automation/robotic interaction, and performance errors due to training deficiencies. To address the identified research gaps within each risk, SHFH's research plan includes studies in the laboratory, in analogs, and on International Space Station (ISS). In addition to establishing and maintaining the risk-based research portfolio, SHFH is also implementing a qualitative approach to determine how we at NASA evaluate human performance. Via interviews with experts, such as trainers, flight controllers, and flight surgeons, we are collecting the metrics by which they assess human performance, evidence of performance issues, and potential or actual consequences. The Human Performance Data Project will determine what human performance data have been collected in the past at NASA, and what data should be collected in the future in order to complete our knowledgebase and reduce risks related to human factors and habitability.

Whitmore, Mihriban↗

NASA NTRS2015

Differing Air Traffic Controller Responses to Similar Trajectory Prediction Errors: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis of Controller Behavior

A Human-In-The-Loop simulation was conducted in January of 2013 in the Airspace Operations Laboratory at NASAs Ames Research Center. The simulation airspace included two en route sectors feeding the northwest corner of Atlantas Terminal Radar Approach Control. The focus of this paper is on how uncertainties in the studys trajectory predictions impacted the controllers ability to perform their duties. Of particular interest is how the controllers interacted with the delay information displayed in the meter list and data block while managing the arrival flows. Due to wind forecasts with 20-knot over-predictions and 20-knot under-predictions, delay value computations included errors of similar magnitude, albeit in opposite directions. However, when performing their duties in the presence of these errors, did the controllers issue clearances of similar magnitude, albeit in opposite directions?

human-automation interaction↗

NASA NTRS2016

Differing Air Traffic Controller Responses to Similar Trajectory Prediction Errors

A Human-In-The-Loop simulation was conducted in January of 2013 in the Airspace Operations Laboratory at NASA's Ames Research Center. The simulation airspace included two en route sectors feeding the northwest corner of Atlanta's Terminal Radar Approach Control. The focus of this paper is on how uncertainties in the study's trajectory predictions impacted the controllers ability to perform their duties. Of particular interest is how the controllers interacted with the delay information displayed in the meter list and data block while managing the arrival flows. Due to wind forecasts with 30-knot over-predictions and 30-knot under-predictions, delay value computations included errors of similar magnitude, albeit in opposite directions. However, when performing their duties in the presence of these errors, did the controllers issue clearances of similar magnitude, albeit in opposite directions?

trajectory prediction uncertainty↗

NASA NTRS2016

Moving NASA Beyond Low Earth Orbit: Future Human-Automation-Robotic Integration Challenges

This presentation will provide an overview of current human spaceflight operations. It will also describe how future exploration missions will have to adapt and evolve in order to deal with more complex missions and communication latencies. Additionally, there are many implications regarding advanced automation and robotics, and this presentation will outline future human-automation-robotic integration challenges.

human-robotic↗

NASA NTRS2016

SIG: Multiple Views on Safety-Critical Automation: Aircraft, Autonomous Vehicles, Air Traffic Management and Satellite Ground Segments Perspectives

This SIG focuses on the engineering of automation in interactive critical systems. Automation has already been studied in a number of (sub-) disciplines and application fields: design, human factors, psychology, (software) engineering, aviation, health care, games. One distinguishing feature of the area we are focusing on is that in the field of interactive critical systems properties such as reliability, dependability, fault tolerance are as important as usability, user experience or overall acceptance issues. The SIG targets at two problem areas: first the engineering of the user interaction with (partly-) autonomous systems: how to design, build and assess autonomous behavior, especially in cases where there is a need to represent on the user interface both autonomous and interactive objects. An example of such integration is the representation of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (where no direct interaction is possible), together with aircrafts (that have to be instructed by an air traffic controller to avoid the UAV). Second the design and engineering of user interaction in general for autonomous objects/systems (for example a cruise control in a car or an autopilot in an aircraft). The goal of the SIG is to raise interest in the CHI community on the general aspects of automation and to identify a community of researchers and practitioners interested in those increasingly prominent issues of interfaces towards (semi)-autonomous systems. The expected audience should be interested in addressing the issues of integration of mainly unconnected research domains to formulate a new joint research agenda.

human-automation interaction↗

NASA NTRS2016

Becoming Earth Independent: Human-Automation-Robotics Integration Challenges for Future Space Exploration

Future exploration missions will require NASA to integrate more automation and robotics in order to accomplish mission objectives. This presentation will describe on the future challenges facing the human operator (astronaut, ground controllers) as we increase the amount of automation and robotics in spaceflight operations. It will describe how future exploration missions will have to adapt and evolve in order to deal with more complex missions and communication latencies. This presentation will outline future human-automation-robotic integration challenges.

human-robotic↗

NASA NTRS2016

Multiple Views on Safety-Critical Automation: Aircraft, Autonomous Vehicles, Air Traffic Management and Satellite Ground Segments Perspectives

This SIG focuses on the engineering of automation in interactive critical systems. Automation has already been studied in a number of (sub-) disciplines and application fields: design, human factors, psychology, (software) engineering, aviation, health care, games. One distinguishing feature of the area we are focusing on is that in the field of interactive critical systems properties such as reliability, dependability, fault-tolerance are as important as usability, user experience or overall acceptance issues. The SIG targets at two problem areas: first the engineering of the user interaction with (partly-) autonomous systems: how to design, build and assess autonomous behavior, especially in cases where there is a need to represent on the user interface both autonomous and interactive objects. An example of such integration is the representation of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (where no direct interaction is possible), together with aircrafts (that have to be instructed by an air traffic controller to avoid the UAV). Second the design and engineering of user interaction in general for autonomous objects systems (for example a cruise control in a car or an autopilot in an aircraft). The goal of the SIG is to raise interest in the CHI community on the general aspects of automation and to identify a community of researchers and practitioners interested in those increasingly prominent issues of interfaces towards (semi)-autonomous systems. The expected audience should be interested in addressing the issues of integration of mainly unconnected research domains to formulate a new joint research agenda.

safety-critical automation↗

NASA NTRS2014

A Closer Look at Automation Behavior During a Human-in-the-Loop Simulation

A 2012 Human-In-The-Loop air traffic control simulation investigated a gradual paradigm-shift in the allocation of functions between operators and automation. Air traffic controllers staffed five adjacent high-altitude en route sectors, and during the course of a two-week experiment, worked traffic under four different function allocation concepts aligned with increasingly mature NextGen operational environments. These NextGen time-frames ranged from near current-day operations to nearly fully-automated control, in which the ground systems automation was responsible for detecting conflicts, issuing strategic and tactical resolutions, and alerting controllers to exceptional circumstances. This paper continues the investigations reported in previous publications. Analyses of data surrounding the conflict-resolution task serve as the context in which we investigate the interactions between controllers and the automation.

Human-Automation Interaction↗

NASA NTRS2016

Multifactor Interactions and the Air Traffic Controller: The Interaction of Situation Awareness and Workload in Association with Automation

Air traffic controllers (ATCOs) must maintain a consistently high level of human performance in order to maintain flight safety and efficiency. In current control environments, performance-influencing factors such as workload, fatigue and situation awareness (SA) can co-occur, and interact, to affect performance. However, multifactor influences and the association with performance are under-researched. This study utilized a high fidelity human in the loop enroute air traffic control simulation to investigate the relationship between workload, situation awareness and ATCO performance. The study aimed to replicate and extend Edwards, Sharples, Wilson and Kirwan's (2012) previous study and confirm multifactor interactions with a participant sample of ex-controllers. The study also aimed to extend Edwards et al.'s previous research by comparing multifactor relationships across 4 automation conditions. Results suggest that workload and SA may interact to produce a cumulative impact on controller performance, although the effect of the interaction on performance may be dependent on the context and amount of automation present. Findings have implications for human-automation teaming in air traffic control, and the potential prediction and support of ATCO performance.

Workload↗

NASA NTRS1997

Team play with a powerful and independent agent: operational experiences and automation surprises on the Airbus A-320

Research and operational experience have shown that one of the major problems with pilot-automation interaction is a lack of mode awareness (i.e., the current and future status and behavior of the automation). As a result, pilots sometimes experience so-called automation surprises when the automation takes an unexpected action or fails to behave as anticipated. A lack of mode awareness and automation surprises can he viewed as symptoms of a mismatch between human and machine properties and capabilities. Changes in automation design can therefore he expected to affect the likelihood and nature of problems encountered by pilots. Previous studies have focused exclusively on early generation "glass cockpit" aircraft that were designed based on a similar automation philosophy. To find out whether similar difficulties with maintaining mode awareness are encountered on more advanced aircraft, a corpus of automation surprises was gathered from pilots of the Airbus A-320, an aircraft characterized by high levels of autonomy, authority, and complexity. To understand the underlying reasons for reported breakdowns in human-automation coordination, we also asked pilots about their monitoring strategies and their experiences with and attitude toward the unique design of flight controls on this aircraft.

NASA Discipline Space Human Factors↗

NASA NTRS2013

Work Practice Simulation of Complex Human-Automation Systems in Safety Critical Situations: The Brahms Generalized berlingen Model

The transition from the current air traffic system to the next generation air traffic system will require the introduction of new automated systems, including transferring some functions from air traffic controllers to on-board automation. This report describes a new design verification and validation (V&V) methodology for assessing aviation safety. The approach involves a detailed computer simulation of work practices that includes people interacting with flight-critical systems. The research is part of an effort to develop new modeling and verification methodologies that can assess the safety of flight-critical systems, system configurations, and operational concepts. The 2002 Ueberlingen mid-air collision was chosen for analysis and modeling because one of the main causes of the accident was one crew's response to a conflict between the instructions of the air traffic controller and the instructions of TCAS, an automated Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System on-board warning system. It thus furnishes an example of the problem of authority versus autonomy. It provides a starting point for exploring authority/autonomy conflict in the larger system of organization, tools, and practices in which the participants' moment-by-moment actions take place. We have developed a general air traffic system model (not a specific simulation of Überlingen events), called the Brahms Generalized Ueberlingen Model (Brahms-GUeM). Brahms is a multi-agent simulation system that models people, tools, facilities/vehicles, and geography to simulate the current air transportation system as a collection of distributed, interactive subsystems (e.g., airports, air-traffic control towers and personnel, aircraft, automated flight systems and air-traffic tools, instruments, crew). Brahms-GUeM can be configured in different ways, called scenarios, such that anomalous events that contributed to the Überlingen accident can be modeled as functioning according to requirements or in an anomalous condition, as occurred during the accident. Brahms-GUeM thus implicitly defines a class of scenarios, which include as an instance what occurred at Überlingen. Brahms-GUeM is a modeling framework enabling "what if" analysis of alternative work system configurations and thus facilitating design of alternative operations concepts. It enables subsequent adaption (reusing simulation components) for modeling and simulating NextGen scenarios. This project demonstrates that BRAHMS provides the capacity to model the complexity of air transportation systems, going beyond idealized and simple flights to include for example the interaction of pilots and ATCOs. The research shows clearly that verification and validation must include the entire work system, on the one hand to check that mechanisms exist to handle failures of communication and alerting subsystems and/or failures of people to notice, comprehend, or communicate problematic (unsafe) situations; but also to understand how people must use their own judgment in relating fallible systems like TCAS to other sources of information and thus to evaluate how the unreliability of automation affects system safety. The simulation shows in particular that distributed agents (people and automated systems) acting without knowledge of each others' actions can create a complex, dynamic system whose interactive behavior is unexpected and is changing too quickly to comprehend and control.

complex systems↗

NASA NTRS2014

Human-Automation Cooperation for Separation Assurance in Future NextGen Environments

A 2012 Human-In-The-Loop air traffic control simulation investigated a gradual paradigm-shift in the allocation of functions between operators and automation. Air traffic controllers staffed five adjacent high-altitude en route sectors, and during the course of a two-week experiment, worked traffic under different function-allocation approaches aligned with four increasingly mature NextGen operational environments. These NextGen time-frames ranged from near current-day operations to nearly fully-automated control, in which the ground systems automation was responsible for detecting conflicts, issuing strategic and tactical resolutions, and alerting the controller to exceptional circumstances. Results indicate that overall performance was best in the most automated NextGen environment. Safe operations were achieved in this environment for twice todays peak airspace capacity, while being rated by the controllers as highly acceptable. However, results show that sector operations were not always safe; separation violations did in fact occur. This paper will describe in detail the simulation conducted, as well discuss important results and their implications.

air traffic control↗