To delegate or not to delegate: A human factors perspective of autonomous driving Dale Richards, Coventry University Presentation to: European Conference on Human Centred Design for ITS, Vienna, 5-6 th June 2014

Outline of Presentation 1.The Problem Space 2.Advanced sensor systems 3.The human element 4.Cognitive compatibility 5.Frameworks for supervisory control 6.What does this mean? 7.Summary To delegate or not to delegate 5-6 th June 2014 Dale Richards, Coventry University

Problem Space Increased congestion Increased pressure on road network Is technology the answer? And if so, where is the benefit invested: Network infrastructure Vehicle To delegate or not to delegate 5-6 th June 2014 Dale Richards, Coventry University © Coventry University

© BBC To delegate or not to delegate 5-6 th June 2014 Dale Richards, Coventry University What the future holds.. © Transport Catapult © Ultra PRT

© Google © G Murdoch To delegate or not to delegate 5-6 th June 2014 Dale Richards, Coventry University Advanced sensor systems

To delegate or not to delegate 5-6 th June 2014 Dale Richards, Coventry University

Essentially a sensory-motor task: Cognitive Sensory Motor With critical cognitive elements that can effect performance: Attention, reaction time, vigilance, memory, bias, visual acuity.. And external factors: Weather, congestion, vehicle, distractors… Human performance and limitations: Cognitive load, decision-making, MRT, knowledge and experience, cognitive style, vigilance To delegate or not to delegate 5-6 th June 2014 Dale Richards, Coventry University The human element

User profile User requirements Human performance System architecture System requirements HMI and informatics To delegate or not to delegate 5-6 th June 2014 Dale Richards, Coventry University Cognitive compatibility

Autonomy System Intelligence Complex Systems Highly Automated Artificial Intelligence Agent Reasoning Human-Agent Collective Adaptive Support To delegate or not to delegate 5-6 th June 2014 Dale Richards, Coventry University

AI Driver Adaptive Intelligence Frameworks for supervisory control Defining a framework allows: Clear roles for tasks to be defined Responsibilities to be allocated Delegation of control over agreed tasks To delegate or not to delegate 5-6 th June 2014 Dale Richards, Coventry University

LoA (Sheridan & Verplanck, 1978) To delegate or not to delegate 5-6 th June 2014 Dale Richards, Coventry University

NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) To delegate or not to delegate 5-6 th June 2014 Dale Richards, Coventry University

PACT (Bonner et al 2000) To delegate or not to delegate 5-6 th June 2014 Dale Richards, Coventry University

To delegate or not to delegate 5-6 th June 2014 Dale Richards, Coventry University

Strong push to address the use of high automation within automotive industry. E.g. ISO, TC22(Road Vehicles)/SC13 (Ergonomics)/WG8 (HMI) - standardisation of aspects of human vehicle interaction. What can be standardised? Terms and Definitions Protocols Interaction System status adaptation What does this mean? To delegate or not to delegate 5-6 th June 2014 Dale Richards, Coventry University

To delegate or not to delegate 5-6 th June 2014 Dale Richards, Coventry University Summary By adopting/defining a framework of supervisory control it:  Fosters understanding of how to delegate control of authority (tasks) between human and system  Allows the allocation of tasks/goals to be shared across different situations  Builds trust and confidence for the user as they engage with the system  Assists in driving HMI requirements – feedback and decision-making

To delegate or not to delegate 5-6 th June 2014 Dale Richards, Coventry University Parallels with Aerospace Control and Safety Human Error and Automation

To delegate or not to delegate 5-6 th June 2014 Dale Richards, Coventry University Thank you Dr Dale Richards Director, Human Technology Centre Coventry University