SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Human interface design”

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 145 records · Page 8

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2007

Integrating Human Factors into Crew Exploration Vehicle Design

With NASA's new Vision for Exploration to send humans beyond Earth orbit, it is critical to consider the human as a system that demands early and continuous user involvement, and an iterative prototype/test/redesign process. Addressing human-system interface issues early on can be very cost effective even cost reducing when performed early in the design and development cycle. To achieve this goal within Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Project Office, human engineering (HE) team is formed. Key tasks are to apply HE requirements and guidelines to hardware/software, and provide HE design, analysis and evaluation of crew interfaces. Initial activities included many practice-orientated evaluations using low-fidelity CEV mock-ups. What follows is a description of such evaluations that focused on a HE requirement regarding Net Habitable Volume (NHV). NHV is defined as the total remaining pressurized volume available to on-orbit crew after accounting for the loss of volume due to deployed hardware and structural inefficiencies which decrease functional volume. The goal of the NHV evaluations was to develop requirements providing sufficient CEV NHV for crewmembers to live and perform tasks in support of mission goals. Efforts included development of a standard NHV calculation method using computer models and physical mockups, and crew/ stakeholder evaluations. Nine stakeholders and ten crewmembers participated in the unsuited evaluations. Six crewmembers also participated in a suited evaluation. The mock-up was outfitted with volumetric representation of sub-systems such as seats, and stowage bags. Thirteen scenarios were developed to represent mission/crew tasks and considered to be primary volume drivers (e.g., suit donning) for the CEV. Unsuited evaluations included a structured walkthrough of these tasks. Suited evaluations included timed donning of the existing launch and entry suit to simulate a contingency scenario followed by doffing/ stowing of the suits. All mockup evaluations were videotaped. Structured questionnaires were used to document user interface issues and volume impacts of layout configuration. Computer model and physical measures of the NHV agreed within 1 percent. This included measurement of the gross habitable volume, subtraction of intrusive volumes, and other non-habitable spaces. Calculation method developed was validated as a standard means of measuring NHV, and was recommended as a verification method for the NHV requirements. Evaluations confirmed that there was adequate volume for unsuited scenarios and suit donning/ doffing activity. Seats, suit design stowage and waste hygiene system noted to be critical volume drivers. The low-fidelity mock-up evaluations along with human modeling analysis generated discussions that will lead to high-level systems requirements and human-centered design decisions. This approach allowed HE requirements and operational concepts to evolve in parallel with engineering system concepts and design requirements. As the CEV design matures, these evaluations will continue and help with design decisions, and assessment, verification and validation of HE requirements.

Whitmore, Mihriban↗

NASA NTRS2014

Some Challenges in the Design of Human-Automation Interaction for Safety-Critical Systems

Increasing amounts of automation are being introduced to safety-critical domains. While the introduction of automation has led to an overall increase in reliability and improved safety, it has also introduced a class of failure modes, and new challenges in risk assessment for the new systems, particularly in the assessment of rare events resulting from complex inter-related factors. Designing successful human-automation systems is challenging, and the challenges go beyond good interface development (e.g., Roth, Malin, & Schreckenghost 1997; Christoffersen & Woods, 2002). Human-automation design is particularly challenging when the underlying automation technology generates behavior that is difficult for the user to anticipate or understand. These challenges have been recognized in several safety-critical domains, and have resulted in increased efforts to develop training, procedures, regulations and guidance material (CAST, 2008, IAEA, 2001, FAA, 2013, ICAO, 2012). This paper points to the continuing need for new methods to describe and characterize the operational environment within which new automation concepts are being presented. We will describe challenges to the successful development and evaluation of human-automation systems in safety-critical domains, and describe some approaches that could be used to address these challenges. We will draw from experience with the aviation, spaceflight and nuclear power domains.

systems engineering↗

NASA NTRS2011

Evidence Report, Risk of Inadequate Design of Human and Automation/Robotic Integration

The success of future exploration missions depends, even more than today, on effective integration of humans and technology (automation and robotics). This will not emerge by chance, but by design. Both crew and ground personnel will need to do more demanding tasks in more difficult conditions, amplifying the costs of poor design and the benefits of good design. This report has looked at the importance of good design and the risks from poor design from several perspectives: 1) If the relevant functions needed for a mission are not identified, then designs of technology and its use by humans are unlikely to be effective: critical functions will be missing and irrelevant functions will mislead or drain attention. 2) If functions are not distributed effectively among the (multiple) participating humans and automation/robotic systems, later design choices can do little to repair this: additional unnecessary coordination work may be introduced, workload may be redistributed to create problems, limited human attentional resources may be wasted, and the capabilities of both humans and technology underused. 3) If the design does not promote accurate understanding of the capabilities of the technology, the operators will not use the technology effectively: the system may be switched off in conditions where it would be effective, or used for tasks or in contexts where its effectiveness may be very limited. 4) If an ineffective interaction design is implemented and put into use, a wide range of problems can ensue. Many involve lack of transparency into the system: operators may be unable or find it very difficult to determine a) the current state and changes of state of the automation or robot, b) the current state and changes in state of the system being controlled or acted on, and c) what actions by human or by system had what effects. 5) If the human interfaces for operation and control of robotic agents are not designed to accommodate the unique points of view and operating environments of both the human and the robotic agent, then effective human-robot coordination cannot be achieved.

Zumbado, Jennifer Rochlis↗

NASA NTRS1991

Making intelligent systems team players: Case studies and design issues. Volume 1: Human-computer interaction design

Initial results are reported from a multi-year, interdisciplinary effort to provide guidance and assistance for designers of intelligent systems and their user interfaces. The objective is to achieve more effective human-computer interaction (HCI) for systems with real time fault management capabilities. Intelligent fault management systems within the NASA were evaluated for insight into the design of systems with complex HCI. Preliminary results include: (1) a description of real time fault management in aerospace domains; (2) recommendations and examples for improving intelligent systems design and user interface design; (3) identification of issues requiring further research; and (4) recommendations for a development methodology integrating HCI design into intelligent system design.

Malin, Jane T.↗

NASA NTRS1999

Assessment of Human Factors

Human Factors Engineering, often referred to as Ergonomics, is a science that applies a detailed understanding of human characteristics, capabilities, and limitations to the design, evaluation, and operation of environments, tools, and systems for work and daily living. Human Factors is the investigation, design, and evaluation of equipment, techniques, procedures, facilities, and human interfaces, and encompasses all aspects of human activity from manual labor to mental processing and leisure time enjoyments. In spaceflight applications, human factors engineering seeks to: (1) ensure that a task can be accomplished, (2) maintain productivity during spaceflight, and (3) ensure the habitability of the pressurized living areas. DSO 904 served as a vehicle for the verification and elucidation of human factors principles and tools in the microgravity environment. Over six flights, twelve topics were investigated. This study documented the strengths and limitations of human operators in a complex, multifaceted, and unique environment. By focusing on the man-machine interface in space flight activities, it was determined which designs allow astronauts to be optimally productive during valuable and costly space flights. Among the most promising areas of inquiry were procedures, tools, habitat, environmental conditions, tasking, work load, flexibility, and individual control over work.

Mount, Frances↗

NASA NTRS1993

An operator interface design for a telerobotic inspection system

The operator interface has recently emerged as an important element for efficient and safe interactions between human operators and telerobotics. Advances in graphical user interface and graphics technologies enable us to produce very efficient operator interface designs. This paper describes an efficient graphical operator interface design newly developed for remote surface inspection at NASA-JPL. The interface, designed so that remote surface inspection can be performed by a single operator with an integrated robot control and image inspection capability, supports three inspection strategies of teleoperated human visual inspection, human visual inspection with automated scanning, and machine-vision-based automated inspection.

Kim, Won S.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Comparing Human Input in RViz and Virtual Reality Interfaces for 3D Object Manipulation Tasks

Effective human-in-the-loop robot control requires intuitive and easy to use interfaces. We present a within-subjects user study design to compare the ease of use of interfaces for human-robot teleoperation, specifically the ROS 3D visualization tool RViz and a virtual reality interface. Our proposed study will determine which interface is easiest to use and minimizes operator cognitive load in shared autonomy tasks.

Emily Sheetz↗

NASA NTRS1992

An intelligent control and virtual display system for evolutionary space station workstation design

Research and development of the Advanced Display and Computer Augmented Control System (ADCACS) for the space station Body-Ported Cupola Virtual Workstation (BP/VCWS) were pursued. The potential applications were explored of body ported virtual display and intelligent control technology for the human-system interfacing applications is space station environment. The new system is designed to enable crew members to control and monitor a variety of space operations with greater flexibility and efficiency than existing fixed consoles. The technologies being studied include helmet mounted virtual displays, voice and special command input devices, and microprocessor based intelligent controllers. Several research topics, such as human factors, decision support expert systems, and wide field of view, color displays are being addressed. The study showed the significant advantages of this uniquely integrated display and control system, and its feasibility for human-system interfacing applications in the space station command and control environment.

Feng, Xin↗

NASA NTRS2016

Anthropomorphic Robot Design and User Interaction Associated with Motion

Though in its original concept a robot was conceived to have some human-like shape, most robots now in use have specific industrial purposes and do not closely resemble humans. Nevertheless, robots that resemble human form in some way have continued to be introduced. They are called anthropomorphic robots. The fact that the user interface to all robots is now highly mediated means that the form of the user interface is not necessarily connected to the robots form, human or otherwise. Consequently, the unique way the design of anthropomorphic robots affects their user interaction is through their general appearance and the way they move. These robots human-like appearance acts as a kind of generalized predictor that gives its operators, and those with whom they may directly work, the expectation that they will behave to some extent like a human. This expectation is especially prominent for interactions with social robots, which are built to enhance it. Often interaction with them may be mainly cognitive because they are not necessarily kinematically intricate enough for complex physical interaction. Their body movement, for example, may be limited to simple wheeled locomotion. An anthropomorphic robot with human form, however, can be kinematically complex and designed, for example, to reproduce the details of human limb, torso, and head movement. Because of the mediated nature of robot control, there remains in general no necessary connection between the specific form of user interface and the anthropomorphic form of the robot. But their anthropomorphic kinematics and dynamics imply that the impact of their design shows up in the way the robot moves. The central finding of this report is that the control of this motion is a basic design element through which the anthropomorphic form can affect user interaction. In particular, designers of anthropomorphic robots can take advantage of the inherent human-like movement to 1) improve the users direct manual control over robot limbs and body positions, 2) improve users ability to detect anomalous robot behavior which could signal malfunction, and 3) enable users to be better able to infer the intent of robot movement. These three benefits of anthropomorphic design are inherent implications of the anthropomorphic form but they need to be recognized by designers as part of anthropomorphic design and explicitly enhanced to maximize their beneficial impact. Examples of such enhancements are provided in this report. If implemented, these benefits of anthropomorphic design can help reduce the risk of Inadequate Design of Human and Automation Robotic Integration (HARI) associated with the HARI-01 gap by providing efficient and dexterous operator control over robots and by improving operator ability to detect malfunctions and understand the intention of robot movement.

automation/robotic integration↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Biocybernetic Closed-Loop System for Mitigating Hazardous States of Awareness

The past century of passenger flight has seen continuous improvement in aviation safety by the aerospace industry. However, while commercial aviation accident rates have continued to decline, human error-related incident and accident rates remain remarkably constant across all types of aviation (Shappell, et al., 2007). Unfortunately, this level of human error is unacceptable when considering projections for increased traffic volume (FAA, 2009), and is likely to yield more incidents and accidents unless a more complete understanding of operator error is achieved and remediations are implemented. One area of interest highlighted by researchers is Hazardous States of Awareness (HSAs) that can result from deficiencies in the design and inappropriate use of human-machine interfaces. Identifying and mitigating HSAs is critical for reducing operator errors. One promising approach uses psychophysiological measures which enable automated systems to adapt to the operator?s state and modify modes of operation to support optimal human performance (Scerbo, 2007). This paper will survey previous research and describe future directions for the application of psychophysiological measures of operators derived from cortical and autonomic assessment to perform real-time adaptive modulation of human-automation task mode mixes. The authors will present a summary of previous work done at NASA LaRC and Old Dominion University using a Psychophysiologically Adaptive System (PAS) in which the level of automation of the NASA Multi-Attribute Task Battery was modulated based on Engagement Indices derived from the users? electroencephalogram (Pope, Bogart, & Bartolome, 1995; for review see, Scerbo, Freeman, & Mikulka, 2003). Future theoretical and methodological directions for this type of closed-loop research will be discussed. Specifically, the capacity for this type of PAS to maintain effective operator state and to enable validation of candidate physiological indices will be described. Consideration will also be given to critical system characteristics (e.g., engagement indices, methods for invoking changes among system states, individual differences among users, etc.) that have been or still need to be studied. The potential of the PAS approach for interactive system design and prototyping will also be described. Examples of adaptive automation flight deck concepts in recent experiments will be highlighted and discussed.

Chad L Stephens↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evolution of the Next Exploration Toilet through Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) Testing

Human waste collection in space is a unique and necessary function that all crewmembers must perform. The variability in how each crewmember uses the toilet to urinate and defecate introduces complexities and challenges with regards to overall hardware design. Because of this variability, it is important to consider crew inputs in all aspects of a toilet design especially with regards to crew interfaces that could impact overall waste collection. Access to crew feedback is essential to the design process and should be considered early and often through the various design phases. In 2020, NASA started a project for the Human Landing System (HLS) program to develop a Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) toilet option. The project is known as the Lavatory On-Orbit (LOO). During the early development of the LOO, the project team conducted several crew evaluations to collect and summarize valuable crew feedback on system design, function, and overall usability to influence the next design iteration. Because every person could use the system differently in space, it was extremely important to collect and analyze the data in a very methodical manner to appropriately influence the design based on the evaluation results. Establishing a standard process ensures consistent data collection from one evaluation to another, helps to maintain privacy for each test subject’s inputs and removes any potential bias from test subject to test subject. To date, the team has completed four crew evaluations on prototypes for the different LOO hardware. This paper will summarize the methodology used to conduct the evaluations as well as how data was collected and analyzed. The paper will also provide details on each of the evaluations and how the design was updated based on the results.

toilet↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evolution of the Next Exploration Toilet Through Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) Testing

toilet↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evolution of the Next Exploration Toilet Through Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) Testing

Human waste collection in space is a unique and necessary function that all crewmembers must perform. The variability in how each crewmember uses the toilet to urinate and defecate introduces complexities and challenges with regards to overall hardware design. Because of this variability, it is important to consider crew inputs in all aspects of a toilet design especially with regards to crew interfaces that could impact overall waste collection. Access to crew feedback is essential to the design process and should be considered early and often through the various design phases. In 2020, NASA started a project for the Human Landing System (HLS) program to develop a Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) toilet option. The project is known as the Lavatory On-Orbit (LOO). During the early development of the LOO, the project team conducted several crew evaluations to collect and summarize valuable crew feedback on system design, function, and overall usability to influence the next design iteration. Because every person could use the system differently in space, it was extremely important to collect and analyze the data in a very methodical manner to appropriately influence the design based on the evaluation results. Establishing a standard process ensures consistent data collection from one evaluation to another, helps to maintain privacy for each test subject’s inputs and removes any potential bias from test subject to test subject. To date, the team has completed four rounds of crew evaluations with multiple crewmembers on prototypes for the different LOO subsystems. This paper will summarize the methodology used to conduct the evaluations as well as how data was collected and analyzed. The paper will also provide details on each of the evaluations and how the design was updated based on the results.

toilet↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evolution of the Next Exploration Toilet Through Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) Testing

Human waste collection in space is a unique and necessary function that all crewmembers must perform. The variability in how each crewmember uses the toilet to urinate and defecate introduces complexities and challenges with regards to overall hardware design. Because of this variability, it is important to consider crew inputs in all aspects of a toilet design especially with regards to crew interfaces that could impact overall waste collection. Access to crew feedback is essential to the design process and should be considered early and often through the various design phases. In 2020, NASA started a project for the Human Landing System (HLS) program to develop a Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) toilet option. The project is known as the Lavatory On-Orbit (LOO). During the early development of the LOO, the project team conducted several crew evaluations to collect and summarize valuable crew feedback on system design, function, and overall usability to influence the next design iteration. Because every person could use the system differently in space, it was extremely important to collect and analyze the data in a very methodical manner to appropriately influence the design based on the evaluation results. Establishing a standard process ensures consistent data collection from one evaluation to another, helps to maintain privacy for each test subject’s inputs and removes any potential bias from test subject to test subject. To date, the team has completed four rounds of crew evaluations with multiple crewmembers on prototypes for the different LOO subsystems. This paper will summarize the methodology used to conduct the evaluations as well as how data was collected and analyzed. The paper will also provide details on each of the evaluations and how the design was updated based on the results.

toilet↗

NASA NTRS1990

EVA/manned systems

Viewgraphs on extravehicular activity/manned systems are presented. Objectives of crewstation design include (1) development of human-computer interface technology and graphical presentations, including multi-dimensional visual and aural displays; (2) provide a technology base for autonomous vision and other perceptual systems, virtual workstation technology, and computational vision systems; and (3) develop databases and models of human strength, motion, and body positions in microgravity environments. Extravehicular technology is addressed.

Jenkins, James P.↗

NASA NTRS1999

Detecting Mode Confusion Through Formal Modeling and Analysis

Aircraft safety has improved steadily over the last few decades. While much of this improvement can be attributed to the introduction of advanced automation in the cockpit, the growing complexity of these systems also increases the potential for the pilots to become confused about what the automation is doing. This phenomenon, often referred to as mode confusion, has been involved in several accidents involving modern aircraft. This report describes an effort by Rockwell Collins and NASA Langley to identify potential sources of mode confusion through two complementary strategies. The first is to create a clear, executable model of the automation, connect it to a simulation of the flight deck, and use this combination to review of the behavior of the automation and the man-machine interface with the designers, pilots, and experts in human factors. The second strategy is to conduct mathematical analyses of the model by translating it into a formal specification suitable for analysis with automated tools. The approach is illustrated by applying it to a hypothetical, but still realistic, example of the mode logic of a Flight Guidance System.

Miller, Steven P.↗

NASA NTRS1999

CONDUIT: Control Designer's Unified Interface

CONDUIT, which stands for control designer's unified interface, is a computer software package. Its purpose is to assist a human control system designer in designing control systems for aircraft. At the present time CONDUIT is being used by most of the major U. S. rotorcraft and fixed-wing aircraft manufacturers to assist in the design of stability and control augmentation systems. Work is also continuing on the development of additional features for CONDUIT, including tools for analyzing the sensitivity of solutions, and on further enhancements to the basic package. The purpose of this paper is to describe CONDUIT, its operation, and the sensitivity tools that are being developed for inclusion in the next release of the package.

Levine, William S.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Compliant Tactile Sensors

Tactile sensors are currently being designed to sense interactions with human hands or pen-like interfaces. They are generally embedded in screens, keyboards, mousepads, and pushbuttons. However, they are not well fitted to sense interactions with all kinds of objects. A novel sensor was originally designed to investigate robotics manipulation where not only the contact with an object needs to be detected, but also where the object needs to be held and manipulated. This tactile sensor has been designed with features that allow it to sense a large variety of objects in human environments. The sensor is capable of detecting forces coming from any direction. As a result, this sensor delivers a force vector with three components. In contrast to most of the tactile sensors that are flat, this one sticks out from the surface so that it is likely to come in contact with objects. The sensor conforms to the object with which it interacts. This augments the contact's surface, consequently reducing the stress applied to the object. This feature makes the sensor ideal for grabbing objects and other applications that require compliance with objects. The operational range of the sensor allows it to operate well with objects found in peoples' daily life. The fabrication of this sensor is simple and inexpensive because of its compact mechanical configuration and reduced electronics. These features are convenient for mass production of individual sensors as well as dense arrays. The biologically inspired tactile sensor is sensitive to both normal and lateral forces, providing better feedback to the host robot about the object to be grabbed. It has a high sensitivity, enabling its use in manipulation fingers, which typically have low mechanical impedance in order to be very compliant. The construction of the sensor is simple, using inexpensive technologies like silicon rubber molding and standard stock electronics.

Torres-Jara, Eduardo R.↗