SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Quantitative descriptions of human control properties are formulated that take into account the dynamics of muscle actuation units, neuromuscular sensor units, and sensory feedback mechanics. Detailed dynamic measurements on neurologically disordered patients are correlated with clinical manifestations of various neurological syndromes to quantify operator behavior.
All vision systems, both human and machine, transform the spatial image into a coded representation. Particular codes may be optimized for efficiency or to extract useful image features. Researchers explored image codes based on primary visual cortex in man and other primates. Understanding these codes will advance the art in image coding, autonomous vision, and computational human factors. In cortex, imagery is coded by features that vary in size, orientation, and position. Researchers have devised a mathematical model of this transformation, called the Hexagonal oriented Orthogonal quadrature Pyramid (HOP). In a pyramid code, features are segregated by size into layers, with fewer features in the layers devoted to large features. Pyramid schemes provide scale invariance, and are useful for coarse-to-fine searching and for progressive transmission of images. The HOP Pyramid is novel in three respects: (1) it uses a hexagonal pixel lattice, (2) it uses oriented features, and (3) it accurately models most of the prominent aspects of primary visual cortex. The transform uses seven basic features (kernels), which may be regarded as three oriented edges, three oriented bars, and one non-oriented blob. Application of these kernels to non-overlapping seven-pixel neighborhoods yields six oriented, high-pass pyramid layers, and one low-pass (blob) layer.
The topics discussed include the following: virtual reality, man machine systems, and human-computer interface.
While recent missions have made great strides in the ability to autonomously monitor and react to changing health and physical status of spacecraft, little progress has been made in responding quickly to science driven events. Also, the new generation of space-based telescopes will generate data at an unprecedented rate. Yet, while on-board data processing and storage capability will increase rapidly, bandwidth for downloading data will not increase as fast and can become a significant cost of a science program. For observations of inherently variable targets and targets of opportunity, the ability to recognize early if an observation will not meet the science goals, and react accordingly, can have a major positive impact on the overall scientific returns of an observatory and on its operational costs. If the observatory can reprioritize the schedule to focus on alternate targets, discard uninteresting observations prior to downloading, or download them at a reduced resolution its overall efficiency will be dramatically increased. We are investigating and developing tools for a science goal monitoring (SGM) system. The SGM will have an interface to help capture higher-level science goals from the scientists and translate them into a flexible observing strategy that SGM can execute and monitor. SGM will then monitor the incoming data stream and interface with data processing systems to recognize significant events. When an event occurs, the system will use the science goals given it to reprioritize observations, and react appropriately and/or communicate with ground systems - both human and machine - for confirmation and/or further high priority analyses.
This viewgraph presentation provides information on Human Factors Process Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (HF PFMEA). HF PFMEA includes the following 10 steps: Describe mission; Define System; Identify human-machine; List human actions; Identify potential errors; Identify factors that effect error; Determine likelihood of error; Determine potential effects of errors; Evaluate risk; Generate solutions (manage error). The presentation also describes how this analysis was applied to a liquid oxygen pump acceptance test.
In the coming decade, the drive to increase the scientific returns on capital investment and to reduce costs will force automation to be implemented in many of the scientific tasks that have traditionally been manually overseen. Thus, spacecraft autonomy will become an even greater part of mission operations. While recent missions have made great strides in the ability to autonomously monitor and react to changing health and physical status of spacecraft, little progress has been made in responding quickly to science driven events. The new generation of space-based telescopes/observatories will see deeper, with greater clarity, and they will generate data at an unprecedented rate. Yet, while onboard data processing and storage capability will increase rapidly, bandwidth for downloading data will not increase as fast and can become a significant bottleneck and cost of a science program. For observations of inherently variable targets and targets of opportunity, the ability to recognize early if an observation will not meet the science goals of variability or minimum brightness, and react accordingly, can have a major positive impact on the overall scientific returns of an observatory and on its operational costs. If the observatory can reprioritize the schedule to focus on alternate targets, discard uninteresting observations prior to downloading, or download them at a reduced resolution its overall efficiency will be dramatically increased. We are investigating and developing tools for a science goal monitoring (SGM) system. The SGM will have an interface to help capture higher-level science goals from scientists and translate them into a flexible observing strategy that SGM can execute and monitor. SGM will then monitor the incoming data stream and interface with data processing systems to recognize significant events. When an event occurs, the system will use the science goals given it to reprioritize observations, and react appropriately and/or communicate with ground systems - both human and machine - for confirmation and/or further high priority analyses.
While automated control systems such as autopilots and medical devices are introduced at a rapid pace, it is widely recognized that user interaction with these machines is problematic (Abbott, Slotte, & Stimson, 1996). One factor commonly cited in the literature is the discrepancy between the machine's behavior and the user's expectations. Design guidelines to reduce this discrepancy focus on two elements: (1) improvement of the "feedback" about what the automation is actually doing, and (2) improvement of the user's "mental model" of the automation (Norman, 1990; Sarter and Woods, 1995). This presentation describes a methodology for investigating these two elements via a formal (Le., mathematical) approach. The method involves two representations: (1) a finite state model of the machine's behavior (2) a finite state model of the user's knowledge and expectations about the machine's behavior. In the analysis phase we compare these two models and identify discrepancies. Such discrepancies can be compensated by augmenting the display and/or the user's model. A taxonomy of these discrepancies will be discussed using examples from automated Eight control systems of modern "glass cockpit" jetliners.
Space Station Freedom will be a permanently manned multipurpose facility in low Earth orbit by the late 1990's. Integral to Space Station Freedom will be Data Management System workstations. These workstations will provide the human-machine interface for controlling such systems as Guidance, Navigation and Control, Propulsion, and Environmental Control and Life Support. In addition, they will be used by crewmembers in the space station's pressurized shirt-sleeve environment to control remote manipulator systems and free-flyer devices. This paper presents an overview of proposed workstations and current task-analytic evaluations being used to assess their adequacy in supporting Space Station Freedom operations. Particular emphasis is placed on the results and conclusions of the analysis.
The study, discovery, and application of information about human abilities, human limitations, and other human characteristics to the design of tools, devices, machines, systems, job tasks and environments for effective human performance.
Human operator as control element in man machine systems
The development of a synergetic system between humans and technology is a challenge that the scientific community has been facing for many years. Our aeronautic research aims to enhance this synergy between humans and machines through predictive human performance modeling for systems to mitigate high-risk situations. By being able to predict and anticipate human states, the crew monitoring system should be able to adjust and support the pilot for aviation safety. Our work focusing on attention-related human performance-limiting states (AHPLS) that impact a pilot’s performance and introduce high-risk catastrophic situations [1]. For example, AHPLS has been cited as a causal factor in more than 50% of all loss control in flight and thus contributes significantly toward commercial aviation fatalities [1, 2]. Cognitive state and its physiological fingerprint can be valuable information for this detecting AHPLS, but human cognitive state detection is still a major limitation for these crew monitoring systems.
Human teams collaborate by establishing roles, changing functional authorities, maintaining team cognition, coordinating, and mutually helping one another close control loops. These complex inter-actions are inspiring novel concepts to improve human-machine and multi-machine collaboration. However, these new systems face engineering gaps in modeling, analysis, design, and assurance. As such, few have been fielded in safety-critical domains like aerospace. To analyze safety, this paper introduces a system-theoretic framework to describe interactions that are—or are planned to be—used in multi-controller systems. It outlines a taxonomy of seven structural dimensions that influence controller interactions and nine dynamics observed in collaborative control that are defined using Systems Theory. An analyzed set of 101 controller interactions in aerospace systems demonstrates how to apply the framework and that designers are trying to create more sophisticated systems. This framework provides the foundation to extend system-theoretic hazard analysis techniques to systematically find collabora-tive-control causal factors.
The relationship between language and empirical fitting of data is discussed. The production system is presented as an appropriate description of human behavior in Man-Machine systems. Issues arising in the identification of rules from data are examined. Rules identified through logical generalization are shown to be equivocal. Difficulties arising from the use of logic-based procedures with human performance data containing errors are explored. Problems relating to rule sets which are not disjoint are discussed and a solution presented. Significant testing issues are raised for rule identification and a procedure based on controlling contrivedness is presented. A synthesis of data and knowledge-based approaches is suggested as a remedy to many of the difficulties discussed.
This report examines the management of human error in the cockpit. The principles probably apply as well to other applications in the aviation realm (e.g. air traffic control, dispatch, weather, etc.) as well as other high-risk systems outside of aviation (e.g. shipping, high-technology medical procedures, military operations, nuclear power production). Management of human error is distinguished from error prevention. It is a more encompassing term, which includes not only the prevention of error, but also a means of disallowing an error, once made, from adversely affecting system output. Such techniques include: traditional human factors engineering, improvement of feedback and feedforward of information from system to crew, 'error-evident' displays which make erroneous input more obvious to the crew, trapping of errors within a system, goal-sharing between humans and machines (also called 'intent-driven' systems), paperwork management, and behaviorally based approaches, including procedures, standardization, checklist design, training, cockpit resource management, etc. Fifteen guidelines for the design and implementation of intervention strategies are included.
The purpose of this section of the plan is to establish a development and implementation strategy plan for improving safety and efficiency in the Air Traffic Control (ATC) system. These improvements will be achieved through the proper applications of human factors considerations to the present and future systems. The program will have four basic goals: (1) prepare for the future system through proper hiring and training; (2) develop a controller work station team concept (managing human errors); (3) understand and address the human factors implications of negative system results; and (4) define the proper division of responsibilities and interactions between the human and the machine in ATC systems. This plan addresses six program elements which together address the overall purpose. The six program elements are: (1) determine principles of human-centered automation that will enhance aviation safety and the efficiency of the air traffic controller; (2) provide new and/or enhanced methods and techniques to measure, assess, and improve human performance in the ATC environment; (3) determine system needs and methods for information transfer between and within controller teams and between controller teams and the cockpit; (4) determine how new controller work station technology can optimally be applied and integrated to enhance safety and efficiency; (5) assess training needs and develop improved techniques and strategies for selection, training, and evaluation of controllers; and (6) develop standards, methods, and procedures for the certification and validation of human engineering in the design, testing, and implementation of any hardware or software system element which affects information flow to or from the human.
Adaptive finite state machine mathematical model representing human operator behavior in manual control systems
With the increasing use and adoption of artificial intelligence (AI), the reliability of modern data systems will be driven by a tighter teaming between human experts and intelligent machine teammates. As in the case of human-human teams, the success of human-machine teams will also rely on clear communication about mutual goals and actions. In this paper, we combine related literature from cognitive psychology, human-machine teaming, uncertainty in data analysis, and multi-agent systems to propose a new form of uncertainty: interaction uncertainty for characterizing bidirectional communication in human-machine teams. We map the causes and effects of interaction uncertainty and outline potential ways to mitigate uncertainty for mutual trust in a high-consequence real-world scenario.
Human performance is critical to crew safety during space missions. Humans interact with hardware and software during ground processing, normal flight, and in response to events. Human interactions with hardware and software can cause Loss of Crew and/or Vehicle (LOCV) through improper actions, or may prevent LOCV through recovery and control actions. Humans have the ability to deal with complex situations and system interactions beyond the capability of machines. Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) is a method used to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the occurrence of human failures that affect availability and reliability of complex systems. Modeling human actions with their corresponding failure probabilities in a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) provides a more complete picture of system risks and risk contributions. A high-quality HRA can provide valuable information on potential areas for improvement, including training, procedures, human interfaces design, and the need for automation. Modeling human error has always been a challenge in part because performance data is not always readily available. For spaceflight, the challenge is amplified not only because of the small number of participants and limited amount of performance data available, but also due to the lack of definition of the unique factors influencing human performance in space. These factors, called performance shaping factors in HRA terminology, are used in HRA techniques to modify basic human error probabilities in order to capture the context of an analyzed task. Many of the human error modeling techniques were developed within the context of nuclear power plants and therefore the methodologies do not address spaceflight factors such as the effects of microgravity and longer duration missions. This presentation will describe the types of human error risks which have shown up as risk drivers in the Shuttle PRA which may be applicable to commercial space flight. As with other large PRAs of complex machines, human error in the Shuttle PRA proved to be an important contributor (~12 percent) to LOCV. An existing HRA technique was adapted for use in the Shuttle PRA, but additional guidance and improvements are needed to make the HRA task in space-related PRAs easier and more accurate. Therefore, this presentation will also outline plans for expanding current HRA methodology to more explicitly cover spaceflight performance shaping factors.